Effects of 4 X 4 Block Scheduling on Student Discipline, Faculty Collegiality, and Obstacles to Teaching in Louisiana High Schools.

xiv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.1 Statement of the Problem . 9 Perspectives Framing the S tu d y . 10 Rationale for the Study . 12 Statement of Hypotheses and Research Questions . 13 Significance of the S tu d y . 14 Definitions of the V ariables. 14 Limitations of the Study . 15 Organization of the S tu d y . 16 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. 18 Organization of the Present Chapter . 18 Block Scheduling . 18 Scheduling: Its H istory . 20 Altered Scheduling as a Restructuring Iniative.23 Block Scheduling Form ats.28 The single-period daily schedule.29 The alternate day plan (or “A-B” schedule). 29 The 4X4 semester plan. 34 Trimester, quarter-on/quarter-off, and other intensive scheduling models.38 Various configurations of the 180-day school year. 39 Perspectives Framing Block Scheduling . 40 Themes in the Block Scheduling L iterature.43 Non-academic effects of block scheduling . 46 Academic effects of block scheduling. 47 Instructional effects of block scheduling. 49 Allowing Time for Change. 53 Summary of the Section on Block Scheduling. 55 Organizational C lim a te . 56 Social Organizational Perspectives. 57 Climate of School Organizations. 62 Problems in the Measurement of School Climate . 68 Review of Major School Climate Instrum ents. 71 Summary of Section on School Climate . 76 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Outcome Variables. 77 Student Discipline. 77 Faculty Collegiality. 79 Obstacles to Teaching. 79 Chapter Summary . 81 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . 83 Introduction . 83 Context Terms and/or Variables.86 Scheduling Terms . 89 Outcome Variables. 89 Chapter O rganization. 90 Methodology for Phase I . 90 Statement of Research Hypotheses and Question O n e 90 Hypothesis 1. 90 Hypothesis 2. 90 Hypothesis 3. 91 Hypothesis 4. 91 Question 1 . 91 Identification of the Sample . 91 The selection of schools. 91 Characteristics of the teacher sample. 93 Instrumentation and Procedures . 100 Instrumentation.100 Quantitative instrumentation. 100 Qualitative instrumentation.103 Procedures.104 Level of Analysis . 105 Data Analysis. 105 Phase II of the Study . 106 Statement of Question Two. 106 Identification of the Sample . 106 The sample at the positive outlier school. 106 The sample at the negative outlier school.108 Instrumentation and Procedures . 109 Instrumentation.109 Procedures.110 Level of Analysis . I l l Data Analysis. I l l Chapter Summary . I l l CHAPTER FOUR: PHASE I RESULTS. 112 Introduction . 112 Quantitative Procedures . 112 Descriptive S tatistics. 112 viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sample means. 117 Scheduling preferences.119 Factor Analysis . 120 Hypotheses T esting . 125 Summary of Phase I Quantitative Results.129 Phase I Qualitative R esults. 129 Demographic D a ta . 131 Background Information. 133 Group I Schools . 134 Context. 135 Student discipline. 137 Faculty collegiality.140 Time-related obstacles to teaching.141 Student-related obstacles to teaching. 142 School strengths.144 School weaknesses. 145 Summary of Group I schools section. 145 Group II Schools . 146 Context. 147 Student discipline. 149 Faculty collegiality.150 Time-related obstacles to teaching.151 Student-related obstacles to teaching. 152 School strengths.155 School weaknesses. 155 Summary of Group II schools section.156 Group III Schools. 157 Context. 157 Student discipline. 160 Faculty collegiality. 162 Time-related obstacles to teaching.163 Student-related obstacles to teaching. 165 School strengths.167 School weaknesses. 167 Summary of Group III schools section. 168 Cross-Group Analysis and Discussion . 169 Chapter Summary . 181 CHAPTER FIVE: PHASE II RESULTS. 184 Introduction . 184 The Study of O utliers.