Tertiary Education Teachers’ Perception on Block Scheduling: Advantages and Disadvantages in Tertiary Education

Tertiary Education Teachers’ Perception on Block Scheduling: Advantages and Disadvantages in Tertiary Education

Clint Joy M. Quije¹, Rogielou P. Andam², Maricelle M. Nueva³

Tangub City Global College, Maloro, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803007

Received: 03 February 2024; Revised: 14 February 2024; Accepted: 20 February 2024; Published: 27 March 2024

ABSTRACT

Block scheduling is a way of designing class schedules where fewer courses are offered for a shorter number of meetings yet increasing the number of class hours per day, thus still covers the required number of hours for a course. This study was conducted to determine the perception of professional course teachers and general education course teachers toward block scheduling. It employed comparative descriptive design considering 76 teachers at a tertiary school in Tangub City. These teachers were chosen using convenience sampling technique. A researcher-made survey questionnaire with seventeen (17) statements was used to gather the teachers’ perception on the advantages and disadvantages of using block scheduling. The results revealed that the tertiary education teachers agree on all the statements describing the advantages of Block Scheduling. Professional course teachers agreed on the disadvantages of block scheduling. However, general education course teachers disagreed on most of the disadvantages of block scheduling. The advantages of Block scheduling are more favored by the general education course teachers than the Professional course teachers while the latter agree more on the disadvantages of block scheduling than the former. It was recommended that the institution can continue implementing block scheduling specially for online classes.

Keywords: Block Scheduling, General Education Course Teachers, Perceptions, Professional Course Teachers, Online Classes

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Institutions do their best to offer students the most convenient way of learning without compromising the quality education for them. Nearly every facet of our lives—including education—has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers all across the world were compelled to quickly adapt to online and remote learning as a result of schools and institutions closing to stop the virus’ spread. The necessity to change class schedules was one of the difficulties that these measures brought, even if they served to safeguard the safety of both students and staff. Asynchronous learning, online courses, and other pandemic-related issues have all necessitated scheduling changes at numerous educational institutions. Changing class schedules or even transitioning to a hybrid or totally online model have all been part of this process in some situations. While Institutions were solving problems with the delivery of instructions, it is also imperative to consider how the class schedules are plotted. Block scheduling is a way of designing class schedules for students and for teachers. In this scheduling, fewer courses are offered for a shorter period yet increasing the number of class hours per day, thus still covers the required number of hours for a course. It means that students will have fewer classes per day or per week.

Faculty members usually had good opinions about switching from a regular timetable to a block schedule, according to Zepeda and Mayer’s (2006) study of research on block scheduling. Teachers using block scheduling reported that there were fewer disruptions, they could extend lessons, work with individual students to build stronger relationships, have a lighter student load, incorporate more student-independent projects, and employ more in-class activities rather than just teacher-centered lectures (Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice, & McGray, 2002). Block scheduling had many positive effects on the student-teacher interaction and teacher methods, but it also had some negative effects on students’ attention spans, focus problems, and basic necessities (Kaya & Aksu, 2016). According to Salas (2022), the pros of block scheduling is for time management. Less class time and interruptions during the school day enhance instructors’ abilities to provide more effective lessons and manage their classes, including taking attendance, distributing or collecting materials, and arranging and concluding activities. Moreover, it allows alternate methods of teaching. Longer class periods allow teachers to employ a wider range of teaching strategies than those restricted by the time constraints of a typical class schedule. With greater time, a teacher may be able to plan longer lessons that cover more material with fewer breaks and provide more one-on-one support.

Teachers also mentioned having trouble teaching a block-scheduled classroom. For instance, they observed that it was more difficult for students to make up on work and information when they missed a lesson (Evans et al., 2002). They also mentioned having trouble coming up with adequate activities for the allotted class time (Small, 2000). Block Scheduling gives longer class schedule per meeting making the time for conventional schedule doubled. The benefits of block scheduling, according to Gaille (2018), include allowing teachers to spend more time with their students and allowing the usage of cooperative learning activities in the classroom. However, the disadvantage of block scheduling includes the possibility that students may forget what they have learned because classes move more quickly and teachers cover less content rather than more.

This study is anchored on the cognitive load theory. This theory is an educational theory that supports the concept that longer class times can lead to better academic performance. This theory suggests that students have a limited capacity to process new information, and that this capacity can be overwhelmed if too much new material is presented too quickly (Sweller, 1994). By allowing more time for the processing and consolidation of new material, teachers can lessen the cognitive load on their students by scheduling longer class times. Deeper learning and improved knowledge retention may result from this. Longer class periods can also allow for deeper topic investigation and chances for experiential and hands-on learning. This kind of education has a lot of potential for motivating students and raising academic standards.

INTRODUCTION

Like many other aspects of daily life, COVID-19 has surely had a substantial impact on educators, students, and educational institutions around the world. Due to the pandemic, educational institutions across the globe were forced to close, allowing students to engage in social isolation (Toquero, 2020).  School, college, and university administrations have opted to offer lectures and classes online as an alternate form of continuing education (Adnan and Anwar, 2020). During the first semester of the academic year 2020-2021, Tangub City Global College commenced in adapting block scheduling for several courses on the online classes. The semester is divided into two sets: the set 1 and set 2, in which a course is offered in either of the sets. Students finish a course in just nine (9) weeks instead of conventional schedule which is eighteen (18) weeks. However, the number of hours per week in block scheduling, is equivalent to double the number of hours per week in a conventional scheduling. Thus, using this block scheduling still covers the required number of hours of a course in a semester. Since online class is new for the institution in particular, the main aim of the management is for students to spend fewer courses in a week. Thus, not overwhelming them with lots of concepts and activities. However, it was not fully considered the pros and cons of implementing the block scheduling. Thus, this research was conducted to address the following inquiries:

1. What is the level of perception of the general education and professional course teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling?
2. Is the level of perception between the general education and professional course teachers on both the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling significantly differ?

METHODS

The goal of comparative descriptive research, a quantitative research technique, is to collect quantifiable data for statistical analysis of the population sample and data group comparisons. Without changing the independent variable, a descriptive-comparative study design aims to characterize the variations between groups within a population (Cantrell, 2011). It compares descriptive data obtained from different groups. Hence, this study used the design to describe the perception of the teachers towards block scheduling in their classes. Moreover, it was used to compare perceptions on advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling between the General Education courses teachers and the Professional courses teachers. This study was conducted in one of the tertiary institutions in Tangub City. The institution has been using block scheduling rather than conventional scheduling in the online classes. There are 76 tertiary education teachers who were considered respondents to this study. They were chosen using convenience sampling considering their availability and their eagerness to participate in this study. Moreover, some of the teachers do not intend to answer the survey questionnaire. These respondents represent two (2) identified groups of respondents, namely the General Education Courses teachers and Professional courses teachers. General education courses teachers are the ones who teach general education courses. These are courses needed to be taken by students common to all programs. Professional courses on the other hand are unique courses specialized in each program. For this paper, teachers teaching these courses are called Professional course teachers. These groups were chosen to compare their perceptions on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling in online classes. There were thirty-one (31) general education teachers and forty-five (45) professional course teachers. Through this study, the researchers believed that it can be used as basis whether to continue block scheduling both for general education and professional courses. The respondents are under the institution adapting the block scheduling starting the first semester of the Academic Year 2020-2021. To protect the confidentiality, all respondents were coded as R1, R2, R3, … ,R76.

The researchers gathered advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling by reviewing literatures. Furthermore, an interview was initially conducted with few teachers to elicit possible pros and cons of block scheduling during its implementation amidst the pandemic. Considering the result, a researcher-made survey questionnaire with seventeen (17) indicators was used to gather the tertiary education teachers’ perception on the advantages and disadvantages of using block scheduling. Research specialists approved the questionnaire, and the instrument was tested for reliability to the 30 teachers. Through pilot testing, the questionnaire’s reliability was evaluated using a Cronbach’s Alpha. According to Gliem (2003), the typical range for the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is 0 to 1. The internal consistency of the scale’s items increases when Cronbach’s alpha coefficient approaches 1.0. Conversely, Cronbach’s Alpha >.9 – Excellent; Cronbach’s Alpha >.8 – Good; Cronbach’s Alpha >.7 – Acceptable; Cronbach’s Alpha >.6 – Questionable; Cronbach’s Alpha >.5 – Poor; and Cronbach’s Alpha <.5 – Unacceptable are the general guidelines offered by George and Mallery (2003).  Thus, with the result of 0.8, it should be mentioned that the items for the questionnaire is considered good. It is essential to compute and report the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency reliability for any scales or subscales that are used when utilizing Likert-type scales. Thus, rather than using individual items for data analysis, these summated scales or subscales must be used. For individual items, reliability estimates are not provided by Cronbach’s alpha. The researchers ask permission to the teachers to participate in answering the questionnaire for the study. The questionnaire was administered using Microsoft forms. Microsoft Forms is a straightforward, portable application that enables to construct forms fast, gather responses in real time, and examine automatic charts to visualize your data (Liu, 2017). Instructions were made face-to-face to the teachers to answer the survey through the Microsoft forms. With this, data were immediately tallied and were easily summarized by the researchers. Moreover, using Microsoft forms, it minimized the errors of data since they did not need to encode the responses one by one.

The college president was consulted by the researchers in order to grant them permission to carry out the study. Next, authorization from the ethical committee of the research office was requested. Teachers were provided with a consent form prior to data collection, and they were guaranteed that all information would be handled in the strictest confidence and utilized exclusively for educational purposes. The data of this study were collected by asking the respondents to answer the survey questionnaire through Microsoft forms.

The data gathered were analyzed and summarized using the mean as a statistical tool to determine the average response for each indicator for the perception of the general education and professional course teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. Each of the computed means is described using the four Likert-type scaling of agreement: strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree. Thus, indicating the agreement of the respondents to each indicator. The mean was also used to describe the overall agreement of the respondents both for the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. Moreover, the independent samples t-test was also used to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the level of perception of the general education and professional course teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. This tool is used in hypothesis testing to compare the means of the two independent groups on the identified continuous variable or interval level data. The result was generated using the JAMOVI where the p-value less than 0.05 is considered to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis used was that there is no significant difference between the perceptions of general education courses teachers and professional course teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. In this study, the perceptions on the advantages and disadvantage of block scheduling were considered. With this, the researchers have found out, what group agree more both for the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling than the other group. This can be a basis to what group is block scheduling more suitable than the other group.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the results of the survey on the perception of teachers on the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling using the validated researcher-made questionnaire. The first table presents the result of perception of General Education Courses teachers towards the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling, the second table presents the result of perception of Professional Courses teachers towards the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. Table 3 shows the t-test results comparing General Education teachers and Professional Courses teachers as to their perceptions on the advantages of block scheduling. Lastly, table 4 shows the t-test results comparing General Education teachers and Professional Courses teachers as to their perceptions on the disadvantages of Block Scheduling.

Table 1

Perception of the General Education Courses Teachers towards Block Scheduling

Table 1 shows the results on the perception of General Education Courses teachers towards the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling. It reveals that the top three highest means are 3.39 and two 3.29s for the advantages of block scheduling which are described as strongly agree. This indicates that teachers of General Education courses strongly agree that block scheduling allows them to spend more time doing the administrative work required for teaching like grading and checking of papers. Aside from conducting classes, teachers are also tasked to check the outputs of the students and to grade them according to their performance. It needs additional time to do these tasks aside from teaching. Moreover, they strongly agree that it gives them longer planning periods. Aside from the students, teachers will just have to deal with fewer courses and thus giving more time for each of the courses they are handling. They also strongly agree that it allows them to provide more varied instructions during class. With the given longer class hours, teachers are able to apply more teaching strategies suitable for the lessons and students. However, the table shows that the lowest mean is 3.13 which is for the two statements. This describes that general education course teachers agree that block scheduling allows them to expose their students to more cooperative learning activities. Moreover, they agree that it allows them to give more attention to each student. Longer class periods allow teachers to spend more time with each of the students. The teachers’ overall agreement on the identified advantages of block scheduling is suggested by the grand mean of 3.20. This further implies that the identified advantages of block scheduling were also experienced by the respondents.

The findings are corroborated by Scott (1994), who discovered that students felt that block scheduling or intensive courses offered more learning continuity, increased concentration on the subject matter, less need to prioritize their classes, fewer courses to juggle and deadlines to remember, longer class periods that promote deeper discussions, increased mental commitment and investment, less unnecessary material, the growth of closer relationships between students and professors, a more laid-back classroom environment, and more reasonable expectations from professors. In the study conducted by Kaya & Aksu (2016), the results revealed that the block scheduling entailed many advantages in terms of the overall learning of the students and improvement in teacher methodology due to the uninterrupted instructional time. Teachers can have the ample time to apply different teaching strategies that are more suitable for the lessons and the diversity of the learners.

The highest mean for the perception of the general education teachers on the disadvantages of block scheduling is 2.74. This implies that teachers of General Education courses agree that it makes them cover less material instead of more. However, the lowest mean is 2.29, which indicates that they disagree that using block scheduling, it can make students get bored in the class because of longer class hours. They made sure that students are engaged by applying appropriate teaching strategies. The grand mean of 2.50 implies that the teachers generally disagree on the identified disadvantages of block scheduling. This further posits that the general education teachers have experienced the disadvantages of the block scheduling as it is applied in online classes.

This result is supported by the study carried out by Hulce (2000) stating that one disadvantage noted was that although classes could go into greater depth during class periods, by eliminating weeks from the course they were able to cover less material. Going deeper to the discussion is good, however, it needs more time to do this. Moreover, Schoen stein (1994) advocates acknowledge that teachers will not be able to cover the same material in a semester as they do in a year. However, they contend that the longer block allows them to engage the students as more active learners and that the activities offered help students retain the information, which negates the impact of covering less material in each class by reducing the amount of review time required.

Table 2

Perception of the Professional Courses Teachers towards Block Scheduling

Table 2 shows the results on the perception of Professional Courses teachers towards the advantages and disadvantages of Block scheduling. It reveals that the top three highest means are 3.24, 3.16 and 3.13 for the advantages of block scheduling which is described as agree. This indicates that teachers of Professional courses agree that block scheduling permits students to stay focused on their daily activities since they have a lesser number of courses. Having fewer courses to handle in a period allows students to stay focused on these courses. Moreover, the teachers agree that it allows them to provide more varied instructions during class.  Since the class periods are longer in block scheduling than the conventional scheduling, there will be more time for them to do more activities in the class so that students will be more engaged. They also agree that by using block scheduling, it allows them to spend more time doing the administrative work required for teaching like grading and checking of papers. Aside from teaching the students, the teachers need to do administrative work like checking the papers of the students, getting ready with the lessons to be discussed and computing for the grades of the students. The grand mean of 2.97 posits that the teachers agree on the advantages of block scheduling. This means that the professional courses teachers experienced the identified advantages of block scheduling during online classes.

Linton (2010) mentioned that taking one course at a time would help students stay on track more readily. Students can stay more focused to each course since they only need to deal few courses, more time will be given to each of the courses offered. Teachers can implement a variety of instructional approaches (Gullat, 2006). Longer class hours give teachers to do this. This allows students to problem solve, reflect and collaborate with their peers which is critical to their cognitive development (Williams, 2011).

The highest mean for the disadvantages of block scheduling is 2.98. This implies that teachers of professional courses agree that it makes them cover less material instead of more. This has the same result with the highest mean for the perception of the general education teachers on the disadvantages of block scheduling. However, the lowest mean is 2.29, which indicates that they agree that it can make them cover fewer competencies. It is of utmost importance to cover the target competencies especially for the professional courses of the students. The grand mean of 2.81 implies that the teachers agree on the disadvantages of block scheduling. While the professional course teachers generally agree on the disadvantages of block scheduling, general education teachers generally disagree on the disadvantages of block scheduling. This further implicates that teachers of professional courses have encountered the disadvantages of block scheduling as used in online classes.

The result also shows that the respondents agree that block scheduling forces students to miss multiple days of lessons if absent with the mean of 2.76. According to Salas (2022), due to the lengthier classes, skipping one lesson on a particular day may be akin to skipping two. This makes it simpler to fall behind in class and more difficult to catch up. Block scheduling, however, may give the teacher more time than the students would have in a typical class session to assist kids once they return from their leave.

Table 3

t-test Results Comparing General Education Teachers and Professional Courses Teachers as to their Perceptions on the Advantages of Block Scheduling

Table 3 shows the result in statistically comparing the perceptions on the advantages of block scheduling between the General Education teachers and Professional courses teachers. The perception of the General Education teachers as to the advantages of Block Scheduling has a mean of 3.20 and a standard deviation of 0.46. This posits that they agree on the advantages of block scheduling. The perception of the Professional Courses teachers has a mean of 2.97 and a standard deviation of 0.42. This reveals that they agree on the advantages of block scheduling. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean ratings between the two groups as to their perception on the advantages of Block Scheduling. The t-statistic was 2.17 with df=74 (p<.05).

The result of this study suggests rejecting the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the mean perceptions of the two groups. This indicates that there is a statistically significant difference on the averages of the perception on the advantages of Block Scheduling between General Education teachers and Professional Courses teachers. Specifically, the advantages of block scheduling are more favored by the General Education teachers than the Professional Courses teachers since the former has greater mean rating than the latter.

It is possible that general education teachers may perceive more advantages of block scheduling than professional course teachers because they may have different teaching goals, teaching styles, and subject matter expertise. General education teachers typically teach a broader range of subjects to a wider variety of students, while professional course teachers may focus more on specific subjects and specialized topics. Thus, they may have different perspectives on how block scheduling can impact teaching and learning.

Table 4

t-test Results Comparing General Education Teachers and Professional Courses Teachers as to their Perceptions on the Disadvantages of Block Scheduling

Table 4 shows the result in statistically comparing the perceptions on the disadvantages of block scheduling between the General Education teachers and Professional courses teachers. The perception of the General Education teachers as to the disadvantages of Block Scheduling has a mean of 2.50 and a standard deviation of 0.48. This means that they generally disagree on the identified disadvantages of block scheduling. The perception of the Professional Courses teachers has a mean of 2.81 and a standard deviation of 0.44. This entails that they agree on the disadvantages of block scheduling. An independent t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores between the two groups as to their perception on the disadvantages of Block Scheduling. The t statistic was -2.97 with df=74 (p<.05).

The result of this study suggests rejecting the null hypothesis stating that there is no significant difference between the mean perceptions of the two groups. This indicates that there is a statistically significant difference on the means of perception on the disadvantages of Block Scheduling between General Education teachers and Professional Courses teachers. Teachers of professional courses agree more on the disadvantages of block scheduling than teachers of General Education Courses since the latter have lower mean rating than the former. This result is contrary to their perception on the advantages of block scheduling.

Professional course teachers may perceive more disadvantages of block scheduling than general education teachers because they may have more specialized and focused course content that may not fit well into the longer class periods of a block schedule. Professional course teachers may also have specific instructional strategies or assessments that are better suited for shorter class periods, and the longer periods of block scheduling may not allow them to effectively deliver their content or assess student learning. On the other hand, general education teachers may teach a wider range of subjects, and may therefore have more flexibility to adapt their instruction to fit within the longer periods of block scheduling. Additionally, general education teachers may have more opportunities to collaborate and plan with other teachers during shared planning periods that are often built into block schedules.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The study revealed that general education teachers believed that block scheduling allows them to spend more time doing the administrative work required for teaching like grading and checking of papers. Moreover, it gives them longer planning periods and allows them to provide more varied instructions during class. While block scheduling can provide teachers with longer periods of time during the day, it is important to note that this time is primarily meant for instruction and student learning. While teachers may have more time to plan and prepare during non-class periods, such as before or after school, block scheduling should not be used as a means for teachers to catch up on administrative work like grading and checking of papers during class time. In fact, the longer class periods that come with block scheduling may require teachers to spend even more time preparing for each class to ensure that the instructional time is used effectively. This may include designing engaging lessons, developing assessment strategies that align with longer class periods, and providing more in-depth feedback to students. Furthermore, using class time for administrative work can take away from valuable instructional time and detract from the learning experience for students. Students are in class to learn and engage with the material, and they rely on their teachers to provide them with the necessary instruction and guidance. If teachers are spending class time on administrative work, it may result in reduced student engagement and less effective learning outcomes. Therefore, it is important for teachers to use non-class time, such as before or after school or during planning periods, to complete administrative work like grading and checking of papers. By prioritizing instructional time during class periods, teachers can ensure that students receive the quality education they need to succeed.

It was also found that professional courses teachers believed that block scheduling is advantageous because it permits students to stay focused on their daily activities since they have a lesser number of courses. Block scheduling can indeed permit students to stay focused on their daily activities, as it can reduce the number of courses they have to juggle at once. By having longer class periods and fewer courses to keep track of, students may be better able to manage their time and maintain focus on their studies. With block scheduling, students may have more time to devote to each course, which can allow for deeper learning and better understanding of the material. This can ultimately lead to improved academic performance and greater success in future courses. Furthermore, having fewer courses to manage can also reduce the amount of homework and studying students need to do outside of class, which can provide them with more time for extracurricular activities, hobbies, and other pursuits. This can help students maintain a healthy work-life balance, which is important for their overall well-being. However, it is important to note that block scheduling is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and it may not work for all students or in all situations. Some students may prefer the structure of traditional scheduling, while others may struggle with longer class periods. Additionally, block scheduling may require careful planning and coordination to ensure that all necessary material is covered within the allotted time. Overall, while block scheduling can provide students with benefits such as increased focus and time management, it is important to consider the unique needs and preferences of each student when implementing this scheduling system.

This result affirms with the previous studies on block scheduling. There are many benefits to block scheduling as it relates to teaching practices. nquiry possibilities, experiential learning, and time dedicated to in-depth study and comprehension in the classroom may all rise with block scheduling in middle schools (Kaya & Aksu, 2016). With a block schedule, students have more time to review and reflect, and teachers can gauge their progress by asking questions that call for higher order thinking and problem-solving techniques (Canady & Rettig, 1997). Because of the longer class period, teachers can take on the role of facilitators and have more time to gather students together at the end of the day to reflect on what they have learned. Because of the short class duration, this is a characteristic that is frequently omitted from lessons (Peterson et al., 2000).

In addition, teachers found disadvantages of block scheduling that it makes them cover less material instead of more. There is a common misconception that block scheduling results in less material being covered, as teachers have fewer class periods in a week. However, this is not necessarily the case, as longer class periods can actually provide more opportunities for in-depth exploration and discussion of a topic. With longer class periods, teachers have the ability to delve into a subject in greater detail, incorporate more hands-on and experiential learning activities, and engage students in deeper discussions and analysis. This can lead to more effective and meaningful learning experiences for students, and ultimately, better learning outcomes. Furthermore, block scheduling can also provide teachers with more flexibility in their instruction, allowing them to adjust their lesson plans as needed and tailor their teaching to the needs of individual students. This can result in more personalized and effective instruction, which can lead to improved student learning outcomes. Undeniably, it is still important for teachers to ensure that they are covering all necessary material within the allotted time. This may require careful planning and pacing of lessons, as well as regular assessments to ensure that students are keeping up with the material. However, with proper planning and preparation, block scheduling can provide teachers with valuable opportunities to enhance their instruction and improve student learning outcomes.

Another disadvantage found by teachers is that using block scheduling can make students get bored in the class because of longer class hours. While longer class periods that come with block scheduling may be a change for students and may take some time to adjust to, it is important to note that this is not necessarily an inherent drawback of block scheduling. Rather, it is a potential challenge that can be addressed through effective instructional strategies and classroom management. To help prevent boredom and disengagement during longer class periods, teachers can incorporate a variety of instructional methods and activities to keep students engaged and focused. This may include interactive lectures, small group discussions, hands-on activities, and other engaging learning experiences. It is also important for teachers to regularly assess student understanding and provide feedback to ensure that students are staying on track and engaged with the material. Additionally, teachers can incorporate regular breaks into longer class periods to help students stay focused and energized. These breaks may include physical activity, stretching, or other brief activities that help students recharge and refocus.

Transitioning from a standard timetable to a block schedule in a scheduling system presents some obstacles or difficulties. The duration of the lessons each day and the fact that students are enrolled in the same classes throughout the year are two aspects of the traditional schedules that offer constancy. Every school year, courses can be taken in sequential order using a regular schedule. It is possible for a student to complete a course in one semester and sign up for another one right away. In a block scheduling structure, a student might take one course in the first half of the semester and not take another course until the second half (Roberts, 2016). This is how this seems differently.

Overall, while there may be some initial challenges associated with longer class periods, such as boredom or disengagement, these challenges can be addressed through effective instructional strategies and classroom management techniques. With proper planning and preparation, block scheduling can provide students with valuable opportunities for deeper learning and improved academic performance.

Block scheduling has gained popularity in many institutions throughout the world as an alternative to conventional scheduling. It has a number of advantages, including longer class hours and more flexibility, but it also has some drawbacks, such as scheduling difficulties and the requirement for additional teacher training. The choice to use block scheduling should ultimately be carefully thought out and based on the particular demands and objectives of the school community. Schools may make an educated decision that improves student learning and achievement by assessing the advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling.

Block scheduling reduces cognitive load by allowing students to concentrate on one course or task for a prolonged length of time as opposed to switching between several courses or tasks in more frequent short bursts of time. With more time to devote to the subject matter, students may focus on it more intently and experience less cognitive strain while switching between tasks. Also, the longer time frames can support the use of instructional techniques that lessen cognitive load, like the use of real-world examples and analogies to assist students in making connections between new information and existing knowledge. Block scheduling, which enables students to concentrate on one subject or work for a longer length of time, can help prevent cognitive overload and enhance retention of new material. It can also help students learn more deeply.

Based on the findings, it can be concluded that block scheduling is suitable to be implemented in the online classes because it enables students to focus on activities since they only have fewer courses for a specified period. This supports the goal of the institution which is for students to deal with a lesser number of courses. Moreover, it allows them to provide more varied instructions during class. The advantages of block scheduling are more favored by the General Education teachers than the Professional Courses teachers while the latter agree more on the disadvantages of block scheduling than the former. Nevertheless, they both agree on the advantages of block scheduling and thus imply that they favor on block scheduling. However, they also agree on the disadvantages of block scheduling which should be given attention and recommendation for it to be addressed.

It can be recommended that the institution should continue implementing block scheduling for online classes since both the general education teachers and professional course teachers agreed on the pros of block scheduling, specifically for online classes. Another suggestion for future research is to do a study analogous to the current one with the students of the institution since this study is utilizing the teachers only as the respondents.

Since both groups of teachers agree that using block scheduling, teachers cover less material instead of more, it can be recommended to the teachers to do their best to stick on the teaching and learning plan indicating the topics that need to be covered. Moreover, since the professional course teachers agree that block scheduling can speed up the class process to the point students forget what they have learned, it is recommended to the teachers to plan and do engaging classroom activities so that students do not easily forget the lessons discussed. Incorporate different teaching methods, such as group discussions, visual aids, hands-on activities, and games, to cater to different learning styles and keep students engaged. Create an interactive and engaging learning environment that encourages participation and involvement. This can include asking students to share their thoughts and opinions, incorporating multimedia materials, and using humor to lighten the mood.

One limitation of this study was that it only determined the perception of the teachers based on the identified advantages and disadvantages of block scheduling; it can be recommended to conduct qualitative research to explore on the experiences of the teachers on block scheduling. Block scheduling necessitates considerable curriculum, instructional, and assessment method adjustments. As they adjust to these changes, teachers could feel under more pressure and have a heavier workload. Examining teacher experiences can assist in identifying the difficulties and issues that develop along this process and provide guidance for overcoming them. Moreover, for block scheduling to be successfully implemented, teachers must have continual professional development. Examining their experiences can aid in determining the assistance and training required to guarantee successful implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The help of individuals whose generosity, wisdom, and encouragement made the study what it is reflected in this publication. God, Jesus Christ our Lord, for the unwavering favor He has shown to the authors throughout the development of this study. Thanks to Tangub City Global College for giving the authors the chance to sharpen their thoughts through faculty research. To the writers’ family, thank you for the love, support, and care. Thank you to the research participants, the faculty members of Tangub City Global College, for taking the time to respond to the surveys; they helped make this paper possible. To all friends of the authors for their moral support.

REFERENCES

1. Adnan, M. & Anwar, K. (2020). Online Learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ Perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology Volume 2, Issue 1,2020.
2. Canady, R. & Rettig, M. (1997). All around the block schedule. Education Digest, 62(6), 30-43.
3. Cantrell, M. (2011). Demystifying the research process: understanding a descriptive comparative research design. Pediatric nursing. 37. 188-9.
4. Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), p. 293-332.
5. Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McGray, A. (2002). Block Scheduling: An Evaluaion of Outcomes and Impact. The Clearing House, 319-323.
6. Gaille, L. (2018). vittana. Retrieved from vittana.org: http://vittana.org/13-block-scheduling-pros-and-cons
7. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4^th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
8. Gliem, J., & Gliem R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and Community Education. 82-88.
9. Gullatt, D. (2006). Block scheduling: The effects on curriculum and student productivity. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 250-266. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
10. Hackmann, D. G. (2004). Constructivism and Block Scheduling: Making the Connection. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 697–702.
11. Hulce, J. (2000). Teachers’ Perceptions of the Block Schedule. https://tinyurl.com/54tftafw.
12. Ishtiaq, M. (2019). Book Review Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. English Language Teaching. 12. 40. 10.5539/elt.v12n5p40.
13. Kaya, S. & Aksu, M. (2016). Advantages and Disadvantages of Block Scheduling as perceived by Middle School Students. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, Volume 6, Issue 1, 50-60.
14. Linton, G. (2010). Cognitive Overload and Course Scheduling. https://glinton.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/cognitive-overload-and-course-scheduling/
15. Liu, K. (2017). What is Microsoft Forms. Microsoft Forms Blog. https://tinyurl.com/533bxvpu.
16. Nichols, J. D. (2005). Block-scheduled High Schools: Impact on achievement in English and Language Arts. Journal of Educational Research, 298-309.
17. Peterson, D., Schmidt, C., Flottmeyer, E., & Weincke, S. (2000). Block scheduling: Successful strategies for middle schools. St. Louis, MO: 27th Annual National Middle School Association Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448862).
18. R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 4.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org. (R packages retrieved from MRAN snapshot 2022-01-01).
19. Roberts, K. C. (2016). Relationship of block scheduling to student achievement and learning activities”. All Theses and Dissertations. 86. http://dune.une.edu/theses/86
20. Salas, R. (2022). The Block Schedule System: 7 Pros and 3 Cons. Education Advanced.
21. Schultz, J. (2011). The Block Schedule: Personal Perceptions and Feelings of Success.
22. Schoenstein, R. (1994). Block schedules: Building the high schools of the future? Virginia Journal of Education, 88(3), 7-13.
23. Scott, P. A. (1994). A Comparative Study of Students’ Learning Experiences in Intensive and Semester-Length Courses and of the Attributes of High-Quality Intensive and Semester Course Learning Experiences. North American Association of Summer Sessions,
24. Small, V. R. (2000). Block Scheduling. School Library Media Research, 1-5.
25. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design, Learning and Instruction, Volume 4, Issue 4, 295-312
26. Toquero, C. M. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine context. Pedagogical Research, 5(4).
27. The jamovi project (2022). jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
28. Williams, C. (2011). The impact of block scheduling on student achievement, attendance, and discipline at the high school level. Retrieved December 4, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528899.pdf
29. Zepeda, S. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2006). An Analysis of Research on Block Scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700585