1

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the reviews literature and studies related to the
relationship between the mathematics class schedule and third grade learners’
mathematics performance in Morning Star Montessori School Inc.

How Class Schedules Impact Student Success

Teenagers frequently complain about early morning wake times, snoozing

through breakfast and stumbling off to school. Any parent who has subjected their
child to a day of strenuous learning may wonder if their children can learn anything
during those first morning classes when they haven't had time to fully awaken from
slumber.

A new study, however, shows that when children are taught in the morning
rather than the afternoon, they perform better in subjects such as math. The difference
is significant enough that students should consider taking morning classes for specific
subjects in the hopes of improving grades and retaining skills, which will help
students achieve long-term academic success.

Researchers examined the standardized test scores and grades of nearly two
million Los Angeles-area students in grades 6 through 11 in a study published in the
March 2016 issue of The Review of Economics and Statistics. Those who took math
in the morning received higher grades and performed five points better on
standardized tests on average than those who learned math in the afternoon and
evening.

Students who took English classes in the morning received higher grades,
though their test scores on the California Standards Test were not significantly
different from those who took classes in the afternoon. Nolan G. Pope, the study's
author, suggested moving subjects of greater importance earlier in the day to take
advantage of the apparent benefit. Pope hypothesizes that higher grades in morning
classes are due to improved student learning ability, a shift in teachers' teaching
quality throughout the day, or even differences in class attendance.
 2

A 2011 study from St. Lawrence University in New York discovered that
college students performed better in early classes. The early morning commitment
encouraged students to go to bed earlier and avoid engaging in social activities that
would otherwise interfere with their performance and ability to pay attention in class.

Of course, the relationship between class schedules and student achievement

varies by individual. According to a critic of the 2012 study, some students study
more during the day and others at night. Time management, stress management, good
sleep habits, and exercise are all factors that contribute to academic performance.

There has recently been a larger movement in schools to start later in the day
to allow students more time to sleep. This is based on the argument that children do
not learn well when they are groggy in the morning. According to Pope, while good
results from those initiatives may show differences in averaged learning outcomes, it
does not account for differences in teaching and learning between different times of
day.

Learning schedules, as these studies show, do seem to make a difference for

many students and can contribute to student success. Students should, ideally, choose
the best time for them to learn their most difficult subjects. However, this is not
always possible in many elementary and secondary schools.

Class Time and Student Learning

As time can be interpreted as a resource, the amount of time devoted to

children's education is frequently examined as a separate and central resource in the
educational process. However, despite its apparent simplicity, time in an educational
setting is a complex issue. This is due in part to the difficulty in determining the
amount of time spent on instructional tasks and the efficiency of instruction—
instructional time is dependent on its relationship to curriculum and instructional
quality (Baker et al., 2014). However, discussions about education and the concept of
time typically focus on the school year and the school day, and the concept is
examined from this perspective.

In most educational systems, students are required to complete tasks such as

projects and exams in finite time periods. In many countries, all high school students
take a sequence of final exams within a short period of time and with only a few days
 3

at most between exams. Performance in these exams is paramount for progression to

the next grade, and exam scheduling may be an important driver of students’
performance. For example, Pope and Fillmore (2015) find that performance is
positively associated with the time between exams. however, this is only one aspect of
task scheduling. Other aspects may include the order in which exams are completed
and the number of exams to be completed in each time.

In most countries, the relationship between length of schooling and math

achievement in the eighth, ninth, and tenth grades is weak or non-existent; similarly,
studies show little to no evidence of a strong relationship between total time of
instruction and science achievement (Baker et al.). International test results show that
American students are falling behind, but it appears that instructional time is not the
main cause of the achievement gap. A closer look reveals that international
comparisons are difficult to make because the amount of time spent in school is only
one of several factors that influence student outcomes.

Students’ brains tend to be sharpest in the morning, after a refreshing night’s

sleep and a nutritious breakfast. This makes it a good time to open a textbook to learn
something new, or review notes from the previous day. With a more alert brain,
students have a better ability to recall details like names, places, dates, and facts. In
the afternoon, students’ brains are good at integrating new information with what they
already know. During this time of day, students can create connections and make the
information they have learned more meaningful (Oxford Learning, 2017).

A few lines of research have investigated the impact of time and scheduling on
academic and workplace outcomes. These studies do not distinguish between student
fatigue and time of day effects due to identification difficulties. Natural variation
across schools and cohorts was used to identify the impact of school start times on
student achievement. Although not every study found a significant impact, the overall
findings of the literature support that delaying school start times benefits students
(Diette & Raghav, 2017; Edwards, 2012; Groen & Pabilonia, 2017; Heissel & Norris,
2018). Delayed start times may also provide health benefits.

Learning During the Morning and Afternoon

Many students around the world prefer to study first thing in the morning.
After a good night's sleep and a hearty breakfast, our brains are at their most efficient
 4

and alert. Mornings are frequently the best time to learn new theories and understand
complex concepts. The abundance of natural light available in the morning can also
assist you in remaining alert and focused. This natural light is also better for your eyes
when reading or staring at a computer screen. A morning study schedule will also
help you maintain your sleep schedule because it will be in sync with your circadian
rhythm. (LSBF SG, 2021)

Numerous studies prove that your critical thinking and analytical skills are
quite effective between 2 PM to 5 PM. During this time, your brain can be very
efficient at integrating and processing any new information that you have acquired.
Afternoons are also an excellent time for creative learning. Your brain can create
connections between what you learned and what you are aiming to retain more
quickly, thereby making you more analytical. In most cases, people are generally
active in the afternoons since it falls in the middle of a workday. Therefore, you can
use your afternoon study to get your queries clarified from your instructors. (LSBF
SG, 2021)

If extended time is not economically feasible, and traditional summer

programs are typically ineffective, educators must improve time management during
the current school year and school day. Block scheduling, in which the typical class
period is extended in time, is a common approach used to make better use of class
time.

Block scheduling is the division of the school day into periods that are longer
than the traditional 50 minutes (Gruber & Onwuegbuzie, 2001). Lewis, Dugan,
Winokur, and Cobb (2005) go into greater detail about common types of block
scheduling. The 4 X 4 model is the most common type of block scheduling found in
high schools in the United States (Lewis, et al.).

Two studies compared student achievement before and after switching to a

block schedule using longitudinal data. Mattox, Hancock, and Queen (2005)
compared mathematics achievement scores in five middle schools over a five-year
period as the schools transitioned from traditional to block schedules. They confirmed
that teachers reported trying new approaches to teaching and that those approaches
improved student learning. They also stated that having more time allowed teachers to
identify specific learning needs of their students.
 5

Students also increased their enrollment in higher-level math courses.

Mathematics scores did not significantly increase in the first year following the
transition to block scheduling, but they did significantly increase in subsequent years,
with effect sizes ranging from.21 to.73. In the second study, Nichols (2005) compared
pre-block and post-block English-content-area student data from five high schools
that used one of two types of block scheduling over several years. Nichols concluded
that block scheduling resulted in minor gains in English and language arts
achievement as well as an increase in the number of students enrolling in and
completing language arts courses. However, the implementation of block scheduling
resulted in few gains for low-income and minority students. Nichols qualified his
study by describing confounding factors that could influence data interpretation (e.g.,
diverse instructional styles, classroom assessment issues).

The effect of class length on student achievement appears to be a complex

issue with no clear solutions. Many of the studies reviewed have found that the
amount of instructional time is not as important as how that time is spent. Goldberg
and Cross state in their revised introduction to Prisoners of Time (National Education
Commission on Time and Learning, 2005), "We call not only for more learning time,
but for all time to be used in new and better ways" (pg. 2). Another recurring theme is
that more time is not a panacea; extended learning time alone will not change
educational outcomes because it must be accompanied by other practices, many of
which are difficult to implement (Pennington,2006). Extended learning time,
however, can be used effectively as a strategy for improving the performance and
learning of disadvantaged and minority students when supported by the
implementation of research-based educational practices.

Effects of Class Scheduling and Students’ Achievement

Since the National Education Commission on Time and Learning

recommended the use of block scheduling in the nation's schools in 1994, course
scheduling during the school day has changed.

Time management has long been a problem in high schools (National

Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). As a result, time has dictated
the schedule, encouraging teacher-directed lessons while discouraging highly
interactive student learning. Nonetheless, in a
 6

As a block scheduled class is twice if a traditional class schedule, time is

viewed as a resource, allowing for more significant amounts of time for student
learning, lab work, and interactive activities.

After reviewing the data and performing computations and analysis for each
subject, the data analysis does not conclusively support that one schedule is superior
to another for student academic performance in all subjects examined. Although the
schedules taken do not show improved student academic performance based on the
schedule under which instruction occurred, individual course analysis does reveal
statistically significant differences in the math content area.

Both Math I and Math II show a significant difference in EOCT scores

between students taught on a block and AB schedule, a block and mixed schedule,
and a block and seven-period schedule. In the content area of math, the significance of
block to A/B schedule is.007, block to mixed schedules is.011, and block to seven
period traditional schedules is 0.013.

Block to mixed block has a significance of.047 in the content area of math II.
This finding supports the hypothesis that there was a statistically significant
difference in student achievement results on the EOCT based on the schedule of
student instruction. Students who were taught block, A/B block, and mixed block
performed better on EOCTs. These significance levels indicate that the data difference
is unlikely to be due to chance.

It is important to emphasize that constructivism served as the theoretical

foundation for this study. When viewed through the constructivist lens, it is worth
noting that the differences in increased academic achievement can be found primarily
in block or block variations of the schedule.

Block Scheduling and Students’ Achievement in Mathematics

Block scheduling was implemented primarily to assist district schools in

avoiding nonproductive periods and ensuring that students can maximize their
academic performance. Block scheduling is intended to accomplish this by dividing
students' school days into fewer blocks of time for each subject, resulting in longer
instructional and studying times. Scholars have noted that one of the most beneficial
aspects of this is the possibility that, by using longer blocks of instructional time and
 7

fewer subjects, learners are given enough room and flexibility about their own
schooling, thus better preparing them for the rigorous challenges of future study
(Queen, 2000; Silva, 2007). Additionally, block scheduling allows the opportunity for
educators to delve more into the content than would normally be possible in the
traditional 45- to 55-minute class periods (Zelkowski, 2010).

According to Zelkowski (2010), block scheduling may be the single most

significant indicator of reform teaching strategies implemented since the 1990s,
because the educational format theoretically provided longer periods of class time that
could then be used to educate students more deeply and meaningfully. The amount of
time spent in succession for one specific course distinguishes block scheduling from
traditional scheduling. Traditional period scheduling typically involves students
attending one-credit classes for the entire school year in 50- to 55-minute blocks, for a
total of seven class periods per day (Zelkowski, 2010). In schools that have eight
period days, it is often the case that the extra period is study hall or activity period,
although some schools may have academic classes for all eight periods (Zelkowski,
2010).

Block scheduling, on the other hand, departs from this framework by

assuming that arranging for teachers to spend longer blocks of continuous 5 time with
students will be more beneficial to students' learning. According to Zelkowski (2010),
block scheduling in high school can take various forms, the most common being the
4x4 block, in which students are given four full-credit courses daily for each semester
of the year, with classes ranging from 80- to 90-minute periods. Students in the
alternating block alternate between classes every other day, like a college schedule,
with the added benefit that classes meet all year rather than just for one semester. The
schedule would be A block classes on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and B
block classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with B block classes taking the A block
classes' schedule the following week—and vice versa—and so on (Zelkowski, 2010).
The class length is typically in the 70- to 90-minute range, with variations made on a
case-by-case basis regarding how the days and weeks are to be alternated (Zelkowski,
2010).

The concept of block scheduling has given parents, teachers, and students
hope because it would provide students with more learning opportunities not available
 8

in 50- or 55-minute periods, specifically the ability to delve deeper into educational
concepts for longer periods of continuous time (Zelkowski, 2010). This type of
schedule has numerous advantages.

Kolbe, Partridge, and O'Reilly (2012) argued that more time may make a
difference in students' learning by allowing for more time for additional instruction
and enrichment activities that enhance learning. This extra time would mean that
students would receive more attention in class because teachers would no longer be in
a rush to get through the required material, resulting in a more student-oriented form
of 6 instruction (Zelkowski, 2012). For teachers, this means preparing for fewer
classes per day (three instead of six in the traditional schedule), which gives teachers
more time to do their jobs more effectively; that is, more time for planning and
preparation (Zelkowski, 2010). For administrators, this means that students will be in
the hallways less frequently as the number of period changes between classes
decreases, which may reduce disciplinary problems in outside environments where
teachers may not have the same control as they do in the classroom (Zelkowski,
2012).

Other studies, unrelated to start times, have looked at differences in

achievement between morning and afternoon classes. Most people believe that classes
held in the afternoon result in higher achievement than classes held in the morning
(Cortes, Bricker, & Rohlfs, 2012; Cotti, Gordanier, & Ozturk, 2018; Dills &
Hernandez-Julian, 2008; Lusher & Yasenov, 2018). Others have discovered the
inverse (Pope, 2015), demonstrating that learning decreases throughout the school
day. We believe that our work generalizes these findings. If the student fatigue effect
is negative in the morning and the time-of-day effect is positive in the afternoon, the
inherent link between the two (morning classes must occur before afternoon classes)
creates an ambiguous result for any model that estimates the combination of these two
effects.

Block Scheduling and Student Achievement and Learning Activities

The block schedule promised more opportunities for diverse instructional approaches,
fewer administrative functions during the day, fewer classes for students to focus on at one
time, and more opportunities for students to participate in elective offerings (David, 2006,
p.252). Furthermore, and hotly debated, was the claim that block scheduling could result in
 9

higher student achievement. "New uses of time should ensure that schools rely much less on
the 51-minute period, after which teachers and students drop everything to rush off to the next
class," according to Prisoners of Time (1994). The use of two or more periods for extended
exploration of complex topics or for science laboratories should become more common" (p.
31). Furthermore, adhering to a schedule of extended learning blocks would lead to students
“meeting high performance standards in key subjects” and not maintaining the school focus of
students merely getting “seat time or Carnegie units” (p. 31).
Andrew Carnegie's work on a pension system complemented this move
toward standardization of higher education and high school experience. Carnegie
began working on a pension system for college professors in 1906. (Silva, Toch, &
White, 2015, p. 7). Colleges and universities had to standardize time spent teaching
for professors to qualify for this pension. As a result, the Carnegie Unit was created
for courses as 120 hours of instruction spread over 24 weeks (p. 8). For each of the 24
weeks, this standard equated to one hour of instruction per day. Again, this method of
standardizing instructional time contributed to consistency for those eligible for the
Carnegie pension program. The Carnegie Unit quickly became the educational
currency, and this standard was then extended to public high schools. Students who
completed 120 hours of instruction in each course during the school year were given
credit (p. 10). Given that the school year was generally 180 days, or 36 weeks, most
high schools established the standard class period at 45-55 minutes per day to comply
with the 120-hour course standard. This gave birth to what is now known as a
traditional schedule.
A significant number of events and reports demonstrating a lack of student
achievement in the nation's schools have led to reform over the course of the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The reform has included changes to many aspects
of education, but one reform effort that continues to show promise but produces
inconsistent results is the school scheduling model. Whether the schedule was
changed to provide academic consistency, as in the case of the Carnegie unit, or to
allow for more laboratory or hands-on learning experiences, as was the case after the
launch of Sputnik, the need for better results in schools remains. Unfortunately, both
scheduling models continue to produce inconsistent results, necessitating additional
research to make more informed decisions (Education Commission of the States,
2013). Given that approximately fifty percent of schools in the United States use some
 10

form of block 27 scheduling, the demand for this research will only increase (Dexter,
Maltese, Tai, & Sadler, 2017)
The cited related studies present the impacts of block scheduling in the
academic performance of learners. These studies further support that proper
scheduling of subject matter engage more the students in learning the concepts. In
addition, this creates a more relaxed manner of learning the subject among the
students.