Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do GPAs Differ Between Longer Classes and More Frequent Classes at Liberal Arts Colleges?

  • Short Paper/Note
  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Colleges and universities offer classes that meet for different lengths of time and different numbers of days per week, such as classes that meet 2 days and those that meet 3 days. Traditionally triweekly classes that met for a shorter duration were more common than classes that met biweekly for a longer duration. Biweekly classes are becoming more popular with time. However, there is some concern that classes that meet more often are better suited for student learning than others. This paper, using data from a small liberal arts college, finds that after controlling for the starting time of the class meeting and course fixed effects as well as faculty and student fixed effects, student learning across 2 and 3 days classes is essentially the same.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. There are various types of block scheduling, but each type is based on having longer classes less frequently.

  2. Hughes (2004) compares the grade point average of students from a large high school in Spartanburg, South Carolina that has transitioned completely from a tradition schedule to a block schedule and finds a positive relationship between block scheduling and student achievement. Zepeda and Mayers (2006) analyzed 58 studies on the effect of block scheduling in high school and found a positive effect on student grade point average and the school climate across all these studies.

  3. Lewis and Cobb (2003) found that student outperform students in tradition scheduling regardless of the type of block scheduling. Edwards (1995) found that most teachers reported significant improvement in their teaching effectiveness after the first semester under the block scheduling. Student achievement also improvement under block scheduling. (Cobb et al. 1999) found mixed, but generally positive results under block scheduling. Students under block system have a higher semester and cumulative grade point average. Male students do even better than female students under the block semester, even though both genders show improvement. Khazzaka (1997) found that block scheduling improved student grades, attendance, and discipline.

  4. While longer class periods encourage teachers to use a variety of instructional methods and more individualized instruction, students perform less well on the tenth-grade mathematics exams under block scheduling, after controlling for the effects of other variables.

  5. Note that the mean reported here is calculated at the student observation level and therefore places larger weights on large class sizes. If the mean was calculated at the course section level, the average class size would be significantly smaller.

References

  • Achen, A. C., & Courant, P. N. (2009). What are grades made of? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. M., & Walker, M. B. (2015). Does shortening the school week impact student performance? Evidence from the four-day school week. Education Finance and Policy, 10, 314–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools (Vol. 5). Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. B., Abate, S., & Baker, D. (1999). Effects of 4X4 block scheduling. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal, 34(2), 298–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, M. (2008). Are 4-day workweeks the future? Inside Higher Ed, August 19, 2008.

  • Diette, T. M., & Raghav, M. (2015). Class size matters: Heterogeneous effects of larger classes on college student learning. Eastern Economic Journal, 41(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diette, T. M., & Raghav, M. (2016). A student’s dilemma: Is there a trade-off between a higher salary or higher GPA. Education Economics, 24(6), 612–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diette, T. M., & Raghav, M. (2017). Does the early bird catch the worm or a lower GPA? Evidence from a liberal arts college. Applied Economics, 49(33), 3341–3350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dills, A. K., & Hernández-Julián, R. (2008). Course scheduling and academic performance. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 646–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C. M. (1995). Virginia’s 4 X 4 high schools: High school, college, and more. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, W. W. (2004). Blocking student performance in high school? Economics of Education Review, 23(6), 663–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D. A., Altindag, O., & O’Connell, S. D. (2015). Does classroom time matter? Economics of Education Review, 46, 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khazzaka, J. (1997). Comparing the merits of a seven-period school day to those of a four-period school day. The High School Journal, 81(2), 87–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. W., & Cobb, R. B. (2003). The effects of full and alternative day block scheduling on language arts and science achievement in a junior high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. M. (2011). The impact of class size on outcomes in higher education. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 11(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, J. K., Croninger, R. G., & Roellke, C. F. (2002). The effect of block scheduling high school mathematics courses on student achievement and teachers’ use of time: Implications for educational productivity. Economics of Education Review, 21(6), 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J. C., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (2011). The past, present, and future of university rankings. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings (pp. 1–16). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veal, W. R., & Schreiber, J. (1999). Effects of block scheduling. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7, 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda, S. J., & Mayers, R. S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Williams School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics, Washington and Lee University, 204 W. Washington St, Lexington, VA, 24450, USA

    Timothy M. Diette

  2. DePauw University, 202 Harrison Hall, 7 East Larabee Street, Greencastle, IN, 46135, USA

    Manu Raghav

Authors
  1. Timothy M. Diette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manu Raghav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy M. Diette.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diette, T.M., Raghav, M. Do GPAs Differ Between Longer Classes and More Frequent Classes at Liberal Arts Colleges?. Res High Educ 59, 519–527 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9478-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9478-7

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation