Higher-order Thinking versus Lower-order Thinkining Skills: Does School-day Scheduling Pattern Influence Achievement at Different Levels of Learning?

Historically, one of the most constant features of America’s high schools is the structure of the school day. However, in the 1990s, “The most visible and perhaps significant change in the organization of the high school is the block schedule” (Cawelti, 1997, p. 41). There have been conflicting results regarding the effects of block scheduling on student achievement. Researchers in agricultural education have supported instructional practices that improve student learning at higher levels of cognition. Yet, little is known about the effects of scheduling on agricultural education and its influence on student cognition. This study compared higherand lower-order thinking skills (HOTS and LOTS) achievement of students enrolled in animal science on a Traditional schedule to the achievement of students on a Block schedule. The responding sample included 45 teachers representing 23 Traditional scheduled schools with 341 students and 22 Block scheduled schools with 325 students. Student achievement was measured by two examinations/scales based on an extension of Newcomb and Trefz’ (1987) “levels of learning” model. The scales consisted of 33 HOTS and 23 LOTS items. Teachers answered a questionnaire describing themselves and their schools. Student achievement was slightly more than half of the “conventional” 70 % passing standard. T-tests revealed that neither HOTS nor LOTS performance of students on a Traditional schedule was significantly different than that of the Block scheduled students. Multiple regression analyses with hierarchical order of entry were performed. The moderator variables student length of FFA membership and teacher tenure significantly explained student variability for both levels of achievement (longer FFA membership and longer teacher tenure resulted in greater achievement); the scheduling variable Traditional versus Block did not explain additional student variability in achievement. One could not conclude that one schedule was superior to the other in improving student achievement.