Title: Authors: Source: Document Type: Subject Terms: Abstract: Full Text Word Count: ISSN: Accession Number: Database: Record: 1 New Kids on the Block Schedule: Beginning Teachers Face Challenges. Zepeda, Sally J. Mayers, R. Stewart High School Journal. Apr/May2001, Vol. 84 Issue 4, p1. 11p. Article *BEGINNING teachers *HIGH school teachers *BLOCK scheduling (Education) Explores the challenges faced by first-year teachers on teaching high school students who adopted block schedules. Debate on block scheduling; Implementation of instructional activities in a block schedule; Assessment of student progress in a block schedule. 6650 0018-1498 4390121 Academic Search Premier NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK SCHEDULE: BEGINNING TEACHERS FACE CHALLENGES Introduction and Statement of the Problem Across the United States, an ever-increasing number of high schools have reevaluated their use of instructional time and have adopted some form of a block schedule. Block scheduling, an innovation grounded in Trump's (1959) Flexible Modular Scheduling Design, reorganizes the school day into extended blocks of time, each approximately 70 to 90 minutes. According to proponents of the block schedule, the reorganization of instructional time into longer, more flexible "blocks" offers possibilities to extend classroom experiences (Marshak, 1999), to reduce discipline problems (Hampton, 1997), to increase student attendance (Khazzaka, 1998) and to decrease failure rates (Hottenstein & Maletesta, 1993). Cawelti (1994) believes that block scheduling increases teacher planning time, decreases teacher load by reducing the number of students and preparations per teacher, and encourages teachers to vary teaching strategies. Literature on the problems of beginning teachers falls into one of two categories: those that deal with problems specific to novice teachers and strategies offered to alleviate those difficulties. To date, no study specifically examining problems of beginning teachers related to teaching within a block schedule could be found in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the problems first-year teachers experienced in the block as they negotiated the beginnings of their careers. First-year Teachers
15
Embed
NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK SCHEDULE: BEGINNING … · (p. 11). Equipped with "book" knowledge of subject matter, a few practiced teaching strategies, and limited ... Gordon (1997) reported
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Record: 1New Kids on the Block Schedule: Beginning Teachers FaceChallenges.Zepeda, Sally J.Mayers, R. StewartHigh School Journal. Apr/May2001, Vol. 84 Issue 4, p1. 11p.Article*BEGINNING teachers*HIGH school teachers*BLOCK scheduling (Education)Explores the challenges faced by first-year teachers on teachinghigh school students who adopted block schedules. Debate onblock scheduling; Implementation of instructional activities in ablock schedule; Assessment of student progress in a blockschedule.66500018-14984390121Academic Search Premier
NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK SCHEDULE: BEGINNING TEACHERS FACECHALLENGES
Introduction and Statement of the ProblemAcross the United States, an ever-increasing number of high schools have reevaluated their use ofinstructional time and have adopted some form of a block schedule. Block scheduling, an innovationgrounded in Trump's (1959) Flexible Modular Scheduling Design, reorganizes the school day intoextended blocks of time, each approximately 70 to 90 minutes. According to proponents of the blockschedule, the reorganization of instructional time into longer, more flexible "blocks" offers possibilities toextend classroom experiences (Marshak, 1999), to reduce discipline problems (Hampton, 1997), toincrease student attendance (Khazzaka, 1998) and to decrease failure rates (Hottenstein & Maletesta,1993). Cawelti (1994) believes that block scheduling increases teacher planning time, decreasesteacher load by reducing the number of students and preparations per teacher, and encouragesteachers to vary teaching strategies.
Literature on the problems of beginning teachers falls into one of two categories: those that deal withproblems specific to novice teachers and strategies offered to alleviate those difficulties. To date, nostudy specifically examining problems of beginning teachers related to teaching within a block schedulecould be found in the literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the problems first-yearteachers experienced in the block as they negotiated the beginnings of their careers.
Studies designed to identify problems and issues facing beginning teachers have been conducted formore than half a century. The findings of these studies indicate that the issues and problems faced byfirst-year teachers are perennial. Brock and Grady (1997) concluded, "Teaching is one of the fewcareers in which the least experienced members face the greatest challenges and most responsibilities(p. 11).
Equipped with "book" knowledge of subject matter, a few practiced teaching strategies, and limitedplanning skills, novice teachers experience an odyssey of emotions which run the gamut---exhilaration,frustration, uncertainty, confusion, and isolation. Veenman (1984) referred to this phenomenon as realityshock, and "In general this concept is used to indicate the collapse of the missionary ideals formedduring teaching training by the harsh and rude reality of everyday classroom life" (p. 143). According toGanser (1997), "Being a beginning teacher is like being in water over your head. You are floating on atiny piece of foam that crumbles away every day just a little bit" (p. 106).
The problems faced by first-year teachers include isolation (Lortie, 1975; Rosenholtz, 1989), classroommanagement (Coats & Thoresen, 1978) and general frustrations (Bullough, 1987). Fox and Singletary(1986) found that inexperienced teachers have difficulty adapting to students' needs and abilities.Gordon (1997) reported that "Beginning ... teachers need more than knowledge of content and teachingstrategies. Insight into adolescent culture is critical to success in managing a classroom" (p. 56). Lortie(1975) identified isolation as a major obstacle for entry-year teachers, and Rosenholtz (1989) stated,"Most schools are characterized by isolated working conditions where teachers seldom see or heareach other teach" (p. 429).
According to Veenman (1984), the number one problem of entry-year teachers is maintaining classroomdiscipline. Brock and Grady (1997) attribute this difficulty, at least in part, to the first-year teacher's lackof familiarity with the students' culture: "Novice teachers encounter students whose behaviors areforeign to them. Young themselves, the teachers have difficulty establishing an appropriate socialdistance" (p. 17).
A second category of literature concerning the problems of beginning teachers includes research thatoffers solutions to the problems of entry-year teachers. Perhaps the most widely utilized intervention ismentoring. Ponticell and Zepeda (1996) identified eight different ways in which mentors assist noviceteachers within the confines of dialogue. Marso and Pigge (1990) concluded that most novice teachersfound their mentoring experience helpful. They also found that elementary teachers found theirprincipals as most helpful, whereas secondary teachers believed that other teacher colleagues weremore helpful.
Block SchedulingBlock scheduling has become the subject of considerable debate. The question of whether blockscheduling solves any of the typical problems of public schools is still open to further research.Research has been limited, for the most part, to studies evolving from site evaluations. Due to theindividual nature of a school's context, very few generalities can be drawn from the research.
Addressing the organization of the traditional school day, the National Commission on Time andLearning (1994) reported, "we have built a learning enterprise on a foundation of sand" (p. 2). Research
Kids made too much noise ... they distracted themselves ... they made a real mess of things, and I hadto intervene too much ... this got me off track on what I was going to do next ... this took time away fromthe next learning activity.
Transitioning difficulties, along with a limited number of instructional strategies, often put the first-yearteachers at odds with knowing what to do. For example, the teachers reported feeling "under the gun" tocover content found in district mandated curriculum guides, yet they did not understand "how to get thekids through this stuff' in an orderly manner. One teacher reported:
I spoon-fed the kids what they had to know ... my lecture notes chronicled coverage ... but I just couldn'tget past one activity per class session getting the kids from one activity to the next put a damper onthings because I had to play 'good cop, bad cop.'
Because the first-year teachers had difficulties managing transitions between activities, they reportedutilizing only one or two instructional methods and students were more often than not, "doomed to theirseats" as several teachers reported. The teachers reported that the students were "miserable," "bored,"and generally "frustrated" with having to "stay put in their seats." One teacher reported that the onlytransition she gave was a "stretch break" and another teacher reported that she "bribed kids tocooperate" by giving a "five-minute bathroom break." Not connected to learning, transitions onlyprovided for "relief' from learning.
Why were these teachers afraid of "losing control" of students? Many teachers indicated that they were"fearful that an administrator would walk in and see chaos." As one first-year teacher stated, "I amsupposed to be in control of my classroom, and if my A. P. (assistant principal) walks in ... I'm in for it--deep." Similar accounts were offered by the first-year teachers, with one teacher indicating, "Ourevaluation is based on maintaining an 'orderly environment conducive to student learning.'" He furtherstated that "the veteran teachers were there to help;" however, he was "leery of letting anyone know"that he was "having difficulties managing a group of ninth graders."
Related to instruction is assessment of student learning and progress toward meeting course objectives.The teachers in this study were concerned that their students were being "shorted" by pen and paperassessments because they did not utilize a variety of learning strategies, and the instructional methodsutilized, did not provide opportunities for students to be engaged in active construction of knowledge bydoing.
Assessing Student Progress
Assessing student progress was problematic for the first-year teachers on the block. The "New Kids"found that traditional pencil and paper tests could not adequately assess gains in student learning. Yet,assessments that relied on performance--what students could do--were almost non-existent becausethe teachers relied on "seat work" out of fear of "losing control" of the learning environment.
Two reasons for this difficulty emerged. First, student learning did not occur in a context of diverseinstructional strategies such as Socratic seminars, cooperative learning, or simulations. Second, thefirst-year teachers did not have a strong enough working knowledge of how to implement diverse
learning strategies that would have allowed for more authentic types of assessment. The teachers weremore centered on "absolute accountability" in regard to assessment. One teacher indicated, "The gradebook doesn't lie ... grades tell a story of what has been mastered ... what the student knows." Anotherteacher reported that "keeping grades other than test and quizzes just becomes too complex."
When the teachers tried to assess students more authentically, they struggled with knowing "how muchvalue" should be placed on assessments "other than what could be handed in and graded." This view ofassessment was further complicated with the position believed by many that "only the teacher couldaccurately assess" students' learning. Although one teacher believed that "students should be able toassess their own work" and this type of assessment was perhaps more "powerful" than the "teacheralways being the final judge," she could not "let go" of what she thought was her duty. Another teacherindicated that he would not be in a defensible position "if a semester grade would be challenged by astudent or parent." He further elaborated:
The administration stresses accountability and student achievement colleges and universities want hardcore grades and reports of student achievement ... how can information like, 'Johnny can draw greatpictures depicting the weapons used in Romeo and Juliet' be of benefit? ... If I can't give it an objectivegrade, I'm not going to assign it.
This same teacher kept focused on "how" to assess "Johnny's drawing skills" and whether or not"Johnny could draw great pictures depicting the weapons used in Romeo and Juliet" could be linked tolearning objectives. He also indicated that "You can't say, 'The shape of the swords are unique ... that'san A' and then expect the grade to hold up under scrutiny."
Several of the teachers also believed that, without clear uniformity in grading, they could be accused of"not having standards." Many also believed students could possibly see them as "being weak" or"playing favorites" by other students. The teachers also feared having to "defend themselves to angryparents" if a grade was challenged. One teacher indicated that when she graded students on a groupproject, a parent "protested her son's grade ... because according to her son, 'he worked harder than theother kids in the group.'" This teacher concluded, "I will never be held hostage again ... cooperativelearning and group projects are history."
The first-year teachers did not realize that alternate forms of assessment can be quantified by criteriamatched to learning objectives through rubrics that specify levels of mastery. The use of diverseteaching methods necessitates the use of equally diverse assessment techniques. While pencil andpaper tests can still be useful for evaluating student mastery of some skills, using alternativeassessment strategies permit students with diverse learning styles to demonstrate what they havelearned. Because of their inexperience with designing activities that could be alternatively assessedcoupled with the pressures of accountability, the first-year teachers "played it safe" and utilized "pen andpaper" assessments.
ConclusionsThis study sought to discover the perspectives of first-year high school teachers who were teaching in ablock schedule. We wanted to know what issues or problems the first-year teachers experienced whileteaching on the block. Teaching on a block schedule is a complex venture, regardless of the experience
The multi-dimensional nature of teaching within a specified classroom context, necessitates moreholistic approaches to the support first-year teachers need. Because of varying degrees of faultyplanning, shaky transitions, and the "hum drum" of following the same routine on a daily basis, studentsact out and this behavior distracts the learning process. Often, disruptions have a cumulative effect withcompromises made in the classroom. Teachers, in turn, try to control student behavior with content anda single, one-dimensional instructional strategy--lecturing--which puts the teacher in a power-authoritystance over students and their learning.
Perhaps, more specifically, the question should be "How does staff development and supervision needto be different on the block for first-year teachers?" To assist the "new kids" acclimate to teaching in theblock, staff development needs to be jobembedded where "learning occurs as teachers ... engage intheir daily work activities" (Wood & Killian, 1998, p. 52). Embedding learning in teachers' everyday workprovides opportunities for timely feedback and promotes transfer of newly learned skills into practice(Sparks & Hirsh, 1997; Wood, 1989). The "sit and get," "sage on the stage," and "deficit" models of staffdevelopment that have permeated schools will yield less than satisfactory results for first-year teachers.
Peer coaching is a model that can promote more active learning based on the immediate experiencesand needs of first-year teachers on the block. New teachers to the block need time to observe inexperienced teachers' classrooms. Seeing and hearing an experienced teacher can help novices learnhow to utilize different instructional strategies that are more appropriate to the extended length of ablock period. Moreover, experienced teachers (coaches) need time to observe novices and time toengage the novice in extended dialogue about the events of the classroom. Feedback is critical andaccording to McGreal (1983), "The more teachers talk about teaching, the better they get at it" (p. 44).Although dialogue before and feedback and extended discussion after classroom observations arecritical, they are not enough for the first-year teacher, however. Follow-up learning efforts are even morecritically important for the first-year teacher and should include ongoing discussion, the sharing ofmaterials, and the examination of student work and other artifacts that can assist in helping to makesense of what instructional efforts and learning activities yield what results.
New teachers on the block need to stay engaged in long-term learning. Infrequent supervision by anassistant principal or the principal is not enough. Lunch periods and planning periods need to be utilizedin order to create a forum for dialogue concerning teaching and learning. First-year teachers need to bepaired with their coaches prior to the school year so that relationships can be built. Coaches and first-year teacher's schedules need to be arranged so that they share common planning and lunch periods.Ideally, the classrooms of the coach and first-year teacher should be in close proximity. Likewise, theschedules of the first-year teachers can be arranged in such a way that clusters of first-year teachersshare the same lunch and preparation periods.
Attending to these scheduling issues can create a safety-net of support. With the safety-net cast in thisway, more opportunities for interaction, classroom observations, and other purposeful staff developmentopportunities can become part of the school day for the first-year teachers and those who are assistingthem to transition to their new role as professional educator. Administratively, these details can easily beattended to while building the master schedule.
Taft 6 English (3), Science (2), Social Studies (1)
Totals
n - 3 districts n = 31 teachers English, n = 16
n = 7 schools Math, n = 8 Social Studies, n - 2 Science, n =4 Spanish, n - 1ReferencesBrock, B.L., & Grady, M.L. (1997). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding beginning teachers.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory andmethods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bullough, R.V. (1987). First-year teaching: A case study. Teachers College Record, 89 (2), 219-237.
Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national study. Arlington, VA: Educational ResearchService.
Coates, T., & Thoressen, C. (1978). Teacher anxiety: A review with recommendations. Review ofEducational Research, 51 (2), 159-184.
Davis-Wiley, P., & Cozart, A. (1996, November). Block scheduling in the secondary arena part II:Perceptions from the inside. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South EducationalResearch Association, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Fox, S.M., & Singletary, T.J. (1986). Deductions about supportive induction. Journal of TeacherEducation, 37 (1), 12-15.
Ganser, T. (1997). Similes for beginning teaching. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 33 (3), 106-108.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyer.
Gordon, R.L. (1997). How novice teachers can succeed with adolescents. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 56-58.
Hampton, D. (1997). Strengthening your block schedule program: Practical teaching strategies forextended class periods. Medina, WA: Institute for Educational Development.
Hottenstein, D., & Malatesta, C. (1993). Putting a school in gear with intensive scheduling. The High
Khazzaka, J. (1998). Comparing the merits of a seven period school day to those of a four period schoolday. The High School Journal, 81 (2), 87-97.
Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis andimplications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40 (8), 36-42.
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marshak, D. (1999). Encouraging student engagement in the block period. Larchmont, NY: Eye onEducation.
Marso, R.N., & Pigge, F.L. (1990). Teacher mentor induction programs: An assessment by first -yearteachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Las Vegas,NV.
Matthews, J., Chapman, C., Flinders, D.J., Veal, W., Alexander, R. (1998, April). Time to teach: Acollaborative study of block scheduling. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
MeGreal, T. (1983). Effective teacher evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Center for Education Statistics (1999). The digest of education statistics: 1999. Washington,DC: Author. Retrieved August 24, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office. Retrieved August 23, 2000 from the World Wide Web:http://www.ed.gov.pubs/PrisonersofTime.html
Pisapia, J., & Westfall, A.L. (1997). Alternate high school scheduling: A view from the teacher's desk.Richmond, VA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium.
Ponticell, J.A., & Zepeda, S.J. (1996). Making sense of teaching and learning: A case study of mentorand beginning teacher problem solving. In McIntyre, D., & Byrd, D. (Eds.), Preparing tomorrow'steachers: The field experience (pp. 115-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rosenholtz, S.J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implicationsfor teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89 (4), 421-439.
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision for staff development. Alexandria, VA: Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development and Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Thomas, C., & O'Connell, R.W. (1997, April - May). Parent perceptions of block scheduling in a NewYork State public high school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England EducationalResearch Organization, Portsmouth, NH.
Trump. J.L. (1959). Images of the future: A new approach to the secondary school. Washington, DC:National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.
Wood, F.W. (1989). Organizing and managing school-based staff development. In S.D. Caldwell (Ed.).Staff development : A handbook of effective practices (pp. 26-43). Oxford, OH: National StaffDevelopment Council.
Wood, F.W., & Killian, J. (1998). Job-embedded learning makes the difference in school improvement.Journal of Staff Development, 19 (1), 52-54.
Zepeda, S.J. (1999). Arrange time into blocks. Journal of Staff Development, 20 (2), 26-30.
Zepeda, S.J., & Mayers, R.S. (2000). Supervision and staff development in the block. Larebmont, NY:Eye on Education.
~~~~~~~~By Sally J. Zepeda, Ph.D. and R. Stewart Mayers, University of Georgia
Copyright of High School Journal is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.