Block Initiatives 1
Running Head: BLOCK INITIATIVES
Analysis of the Strategic Initiatives for the Block at Tusculum College
Teresa Bagamery Clark
Vanderbilt University
May 2010
Block Initiatives 2
Analysis of the Strategic Initiatives for the
Block at Tusculum College
Executive Summary
Tusculum College in Greeneville, Tennessee
has operated on the “Block,” an academic
calendar in which students take—and
professors teach—one course at a time for a
period of 18 weekdays with several blocks
composing a semester, since 1994.
However, now the strategic planning
committee at Tusculum has formulated a list
of potential changes to the Block with the
goal of enhancing the classroom experience
for students and faculty. The proposed
initiatives would pilot during the timeframe
of 2009 to 2014. One of which, the
formation of living-learning communities,
was tested in 2008 and implemented in fall
2009. The purpose of this study is to
investigate the remaining three strategic
initiatives in order to recommend which, if
any, the college should implement next in
the pursuit of improving the Block at
Tusculum.
Changes to the Block currently under
consideration by the strategic planning
committee and administration consist of the
following: first, dividing Block courses that
normally last three hours in either the
morning or afternoon into two one-and-ahalf-hour sessions per day (split courses);
second, moving from one course per block
to two courses at a time for a seven-week,
two-block period (parallel courses); and
finally, establishing a testing center, where
students would complete all assessments
currently administered in the classroom.
The project questions for this study address
costs and benefits of each initiative, the
practices of peer institutions, meeting
students’ needs, and academic calendar and
course schedule options. Through the use of
existing literature, best practices from other
institutions, and focus groups, conclusions
and recommendations are formulated
regarding each initiative.
From the focus groups, the major findings
that resulted included that staff preferred the
initiative to establish a central testing
location for all student exams to the other
two proposed changes. Whereas the faculty
completely opposed this idea. Faculty,
choosing from among the available options,
sided with the introduction of the split
courses on a voluntary basis only. Neither
the faculty nor staff groups chose parallel
courses as the next (i.e. to follow livinglearning communities) to implement, though
the faculty participants were open to trying
multi-block courses as an optional format.
Block Initiatives 3
Introduction
Tusculum College in Greeneville,
Tennessee, the oldest college in the state,
is one of only four higher education
institutions in the United States that
operate on a block schedule, with the
defining feature of one course at a time in
a shortened term. The other three
institutions that also use this academic
calendar and course schedule are as
follows: Cornell College in Mount
Vernon, Iowa, Colorado College in
Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the
University of Montana Western in Dillon,
Montana. Cornell adopted the one course
at a time (OCAAT) plan in 1978, while
Colorado’s block schedule began earlier,
in 1970 (Colorado College, 2009; Cornell
College, 2009). The Block at Tusculum
started later, in 1992 (Tusculum College,
2009). Most recently, public university
Montana Western transitioned to the
Experience One (X1) block schedule in
2004 (The University of Montana
Western). In addition to the American
examples, Quest University near
Vancouver, British Columbia opened just
a few years ago and operates classes on a
block plan (Quest University, 2009).
In an effort to improve the Block
experience for students and faculty at
Tusculum, the college has implemented
one change so far and may implement
others before 2014. The only initiative on
the Tusculum College Strategic Plan
2009-2014 that is in effect today is known
as 4.3 and involves living-learning
communities, or cohorts, which the college
introduced in 2008 and renewed on a
permanent basis in 2009. The remaining
initiatives that Tusculum may pilot and
implement include parallel courses, split
courses, and a testing center. These
proposed alterations to the Block are not
necessarily bundled as three parts of one
package, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Though the question remains, which, if
any, Tusculum should adopt.
Proposed Initiatives
Initiative 4.1: Provide the opportunity for
students to take two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a seven-week (two
blocks) period.
Initiative 4.2: Change current class
scheduling to minimize challenge of
maintaining academic engagement for three
hours and to increase opportunities for
student and faculty outside-of-class
interaction.
Initiative 4.4: Reduce the pedagogical
limitations of the block by capturing as
much instructional time as possible in each
class session by removing assessment and
testing from class sessions.
Note: Tusculum has already implemented
Initiative 4.3.
Definition of the Issue
The purpose of this study is to investigate
Tusculum’s proposed strategic initiatives
for the Block and make recommendations
as to whether the college should implement
any or all. This study is at the request of a
member of the senior leadership team at
Tusculum in order to provide a research
base and informed suggestions for
Tusculum.
The primary research questions are as
follows:

“What are the costs and benefits of
the proposed strategic plan
initiatives?”
Block Initiatives 4


“Do the strategic initiatives meet the
needs of our current students?”
“Are there other initiatives that
should be considered as part of the
‘block plan enhancement’ goal?”
The secondary research questions, or subquestions, are as follows:



“What strategic initiatives among the
three remaining delineated in the
Strategic Plan would be the best one
to pilot and implement next
(following the Living-Learning
Communities)?”
“How have Colorado College and
Cornell College changed their
version of the Block, if at all, in
order to manage student expectations
and produce better learning
outcomes?”
“Other than the Block and the
traditional semester calendar, what
other academic calendars exist?”
Contextual Analysis
In part to answer the project question
regarding Colorado and Cornell, and to
properly consider each initiative charted
above, it is important to lay the foundation
that explores the Block at institutions similar
to Tusculum. The college’s primary peer
institutions, as pertaining to course schedule
and academic calendar, include Colorado
College and Cornell College. Both
Colorado and Cornell preceded Tusculum in
adopting a block format. Since Tusculum’s
adoption in 1994, two additional universities
have joined their ranks: the University of
Montana- Western also in the United States
and Quest University in Canada. Hiram
College in Hiram, Ohio does not constitute a
pure block format but does operate some
courses in two three-week terms per year
(Hiram College, 2009).
To gather information regarding the other
block plans, the data collection methods
included website research for all the
institutions, phone interviews with a faculty
member from Colorado College and Cornell
College, respectively, as well as articles and
documents about Colorado. The phone
interviews were scheduled with the two
interviewees via email and each conducted
in one phone conversation, with the
Colorado call on a separate day from
Cornell. A set of questions was formulated
prior to the phone call; although the
intention was to use these questions as a
guide, so during the phone call the faculty
member from each respective institution
often spoke freely instead of as a response to
a direct question. Faculty members were
informed via email as well as on the phone
call that the researcher was conducting a
project as a Vanderbilt University graduate
student at Tusculum College regarding the
Block. The interview questions were
utilized to provide direction (Appendix A).
Colorado College
Colorado College, one of four institutions in
the United States that operates on a block
system discovered in the 1970s that
changing to a “modular plan” was possible
(Brooks, 1969). The faculty at Colorado,
the mother of the block, reexamined both
academics and student life in the 1960s and
arrived at the shortened term with only one
course (Pope, 2007). A group of professors
asked the question, “Why can’t the college
give me 15 students and let me work just
with them?” (Pope, 2007). That musing gave
birth to the block.
Early on, considerations for the new block
schedule included construction, registration
and enrollment, space, and fixtures. The
idea of the block stemmed from a review
Block Initiatives 5
showing that students and faculty possessed
conflicting demands and a lack of control
over their own schedules. The trial block
plan included single courses,
interdisciplinary courses (with two or three
professors), and groups of “dissimilar
courses of varying lengths” (Brooks, 1969).
Today, Colorado offers some courses lasting
two or three blocks each (Colorado College,
2009).
Colorado’s faculty proposed three- six- and
nine-week blocks of time, throughout the
year, resulting in a 33-week calendar. The
concept was to offer one course at a time,
with the professor setting the meeting times
for his or her own course (Brooks, 1969).
Some concern arose regarding courses such
as the sciences, so modules of nine weeks
were meant for courses “not amenable to
intensive study” that needed more time
(Brooks, 1969). A separate study suggests
accelerated schedules may not be
appropriate for upper-division classes
(Daniel, 2000)
The early block plan included half-courses,
which met partially in the early morning and
completed in the late morning (Brooks,
1969). Professors could teach two courses
per block, or two sections of the same
course. Late afternoon and early evening
sections included dance, choir, and others
that were considered “adjunct courses.”
Students could take half-time courses, such
as dance and music, along with principle
(main) courses. Faculty would teach 30 out
of 33 weeks, and students would attend class
a total of 120 weeks to graduate (30 weeks
per year) (Brooks, 1969).
Despite some debate, Colorado’s faculty
supported the new block schedule, also
known as modular learning (Pope, 2007). In
2007, the college’s president, Richard
Celeste, explained the reasons why more
institutions have not boarded the block
bandwagon: the expense of maintaining
small classes (averaging 16 students) and of
using 122 classrooms at one time for classes
(Pope, 2007).
Today, one perspective is that Colorado is
reconsidering its model (Daniel, 2000). On
the other hand, no one is calling for a
complete makeover of the 40-year-old
format, (Pope, 2007; Colorado faculty,
personal communication, September 22,
2009). President Celeste says proof that the
block works is evident in positive feedback
from students and parents (Pope, 2007).
Unlike Tusculum, where each class meets
for three hours in the morning or afternoon
for one block, Colorado offers some courses
lasting two or three blocks each (Colorado
College, 2009). In addition, faculty decide
what time their courses will begin and end,
so classes could meet in the morning or
afternoon and for more than three hours
(Colorado College, 2009). Despite this
flexibility, the average class meets 9:00 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m. (Colorado faculty, personal
communication, September 22, 2009).
Colorado also has half-block courses, which
meet for 10 days, such as between the last
block of the fall and the first block of the
spring (Colorado College, 2009).
Colorado’s enrollment reached 1,975
undergraduate students as of spring 2009
(Colorado College, 2010). The median ACT
score for Colorado’s freshmen is 29 (the
highest of all Block institutions). Colorado
also boasts the highest graduation rate at
80.9% for both a four-year rate of the class
of 2008 and a seven-year rate of the class of
2011. In academic year 2008-2009, 87% of
Colorado’s freshmen graduated from high
school in the top quarter of their class, while
67% graduated in the top 10%. As of fall
2007, Colorado’s retention rate soared at
Block Initiatives 6
94.1%. Colorado’s tuition for 2009-2010 is
listed as $37,278, and when room and board,
books, and travel expenses add in, the price
tag amounts to about $49,000 (Colorado
College, 2010).
Cornell College
Cornell’s “One Course at a Time.” OCAAT
serves as another example of the focused,
block format (Cornell College). In 1978, the
dean asked faculty to consider moving to the
new calendar to increase the college’s
attractiveness to students, increase its
distinction, and for pedagogical advantages
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009). In the first vote, about
a third of the faculty opposed the block
calendar, and much tension played out
during the first several years following
OCAAT’s inception. Some faculty left,
because they did not like the format, but
others converted. Today, professors join
Cornell’s faculty primarily due to OCCAT,
and rarely is the schedule the reason faculty
members leave (Cornell faculty).
The faculty member who provided firsthand information about OCAAT has taught
at Cornell for nearly 30 years, and had never
taught in any other academic calendar before
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009). He says the faculty
must be ready when the course starts, due to
the block’s fast pace and lack of course
preparation time throughout. OCAAT
encourages faculty to determine why and
how they are grading as well as to become
better at teaching and grading, because
faculty cannot assign a 20-page research
paper to be due by the end of the block.
Faculty, who teach six to nine blocks per
year, may need to use their weekends to
grade, but having a scoring rubric set up
ahead of time helps to increase consistency
across papers. He says the only thing a
professor thinks about is the one course he
or she is teaching at any particular time, but
adds that while it can be consuming “it’s
fun” (Cornell faculty).
Similar to parallel courses, students can take
link courses, in an interdisciplinary approach
to course scheduling but in separate blocks
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009). Cornell offers link
courses for first-year sociology and geology
courses, for example. Students may take
sociology in the first block and geology in
the third, but both courses will focus on one
theme (e.g. consumption) (Cornell faculty).
As with the parallel course option, few
courses are offered as links. Cornell
experimented with offering interdisciplinary
link courses in a parallel format, such as
biology and psychology courses that deal
with the common theme of cognition. Each
course would contain a different group of
students, but the courses would “link,” or
meet as a combined class at certain points
throughout one block. Cornell is looking to
take this approach with its environmental
studies program (Cornell faculty).
As with Colorado and Tusculum, each
course (other than parallel courses) meets
for three and one half weeks, with a fourday break between. However, whereas
Tusculum’s courses meet for three hours in
the morning or afternoon, and Colorado’s
courses meet whenever the faculty would
like, Cornell’s professors teach half of the
class 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. and the other half in
the afternoons from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
(Cornell College, 2009). Each course totals
four credits, as is common with block
programs.
Cornell’s calendar is comprised of four
blocks in the fall, four in the spring, and one
in May, with no summer classes (Cornell
Block Initiatives 7
College, 2009). The summer provides time
for students to go home, work, travel, and
volunteer. Benefits of OCAAT include
study abroad and internships, as such travel
takes place within one block and does not
interfere with any other courses. The
students enjoy that they do not have to
worry about other courses while on trips. In
addition, the faculty speak highly of the
immersion into one subject at a time as well
as the high level of faculty-student
interaction afforded by OCAAT (Cornell
College, 2009).
For academic year 2008-2009, Cornell’s
full-time enrolled undergraduates reached
1,111 students (Cornell College, 2009). The
retention rate for the same year, from
freshman to sophomore years, was 82%,
about 14% below Colorado. Their six-year
graduation rate is 71%, almost 10% lower
than Colorado’s four- and seven-year rates.
Cornell’s class of 2012 came to college with
an average ACT of 26, lower than
Colorado’s students, and average GPA of
3.44. Students pay $35,000 per academic
year in tuition, and including room and
board as well as books and travel expenses,
the total price of attendance amounts to
about $45,000 (Cornell College, 2010).
The University of Montana Western
The University of Montana Western arrived
at the block party somewhat later than
Cornell and Tusculum. In 1987, the
University of Montana merged with Western
Montana College to create an institution
temporarily named Western Montana
College of the University of Montana. The
Board of Regents approved its renaming to
the University of Montana Western in 2001.
Just a few years later, in fall 2004, the
university piloted Experience One (X1) for
all first-time freshmen. A full campus
conversion to X1 began in fall 2005, and the
university continues to operate on a block
calendar today (The University of Montana
Western, 2009).
As with Tusculum, Montana Western’s
block plan, Experience One operates as one
course at a time for 18 days for three hours
per day (The University of Montana
Western, 2009). Also, in common with
Tusculum, students at Montana Western
take a four-day break between blocks. Each
course results in four credits for students,
and four blocks fill one semester. As seen
with Colorado, most classes have 16 or
fewer students, and the largest classes
contain only 30. The 1,154 undergraduate
students at Montana Western (as of 20082009) take four blocks in the fall and spring,
respectively, with three summer blocks
(Montana Western, 2009). However, in
addition to 18-day courses, students may
also take full semester (or, multi-block)
classes during the fall, spring, and summer
(Montana Western, 2009).
Students engage in “authentic workforce
activities” instead of lecture, that Montana
Western administration hope will give their
students an edge in the workforce and
graduate school (Montana Western, 2009).
Other advantages of X1’s block format
include the attention and assistance provided
by professors, because each professor
concentrates on one group of students per
block. In addition, students participate in
experiential, innovative, and
interdisciplinary learning experiences
afforded by the intensive format of X1
(Montana Western, 2009).
Montana Western’s tuition for freshmen and
sophomores is $1,401, while it is $1,953.60
for juniors and seniors, each in addition to
room ($1,090) and board ($1,665) (Montana
Western, 2010). The average GPA of the
freshmen, who can study one of 90 different
Block Initiatives 8
academic areas, is 3.0, but only 21%
graduated in the top 25% of their high
school class. Montana Western’s freshman
to sophomore retention rate was 65% as of
fall 2009. Although that is as much as 20%
lower than the other Block institutions, U.S.
News and World Report ranked the
institution eighteenth in western
baccalaureate-granting colleges (Montana
Western, 2010).
Quest University
Quest University, located near Vancouver,
British Columbia, acts as the Canadian sister
to Colorado, Cornell, Tusculum, and
Montana Western. Following the common
theme, students in Quest’s block plan take
one class at a time for three hours a day and
three and one half weeks (Quest University,
2009). As with Montana Western, Quest’s
calendar includes four blocks per term.
However, unlike the others, Quest
University, the block institution in Canada,
does not offer courses lasting longer than
one block period. Students at Quest take
only three-and-a-half week courses (Quest
University, 2009). Montana Western and
Quest are the two newest institutions to offer
one course every 18 days as a regular
academic calendar.
Quest’s block plan advantages appear very
similar to those espoused by the American
block institutions. The block provides
opportunities for field trips and outdoor
experiential learning as well as off-campus
internships. Students focus on one subject at
a time, as with other block colleges, which
promotes immersion and engagement. In
addition, students participate in small-group
work in breakout rooms, instead of sitting
through three hours of lecture per day
(Quest University, 2009).
As with Colorado, Cornell, and Tusculum,
Quest is a private institution. Whereas
students at Montana Western take three
blocks during the summer, students at Quest
enroll in only two (Quest University, 2009).
Quest’s Foundation Program composes the
first two years of students’ college careers,
with 16 required courses taken over four
terms, with multiple blocks per term. In the
first term, students take Cornerstone during
the first block, and by the last block of the
fourth term, they enroll in Your Question.
During the first two years of courses, each
student formulates his or her research
question and proceeds to investigate and
answer it during years three and four (Quest
University, 2009).
Quest, which just opened in 2002, by far the
youngest of the Block institutions, enrolls
142 students, but is growing toward its
maximum capacity of 800. Tuition costs
$25,000 per academic year plus $8,000 for
room and board (Quest University, 2010).
Hiram College
While Hiram is not considered to the extent
of the other institutions for the purposes of
this study, it is worth noting due to its
modified block. Students at Hiram engage
in two three-week blocks per year, as the
college divides regular semesters into a 12week term and three-week term (Hiram
College, 2009). During the short term,
students take one course for four days per
week, instead of five at the block
institutions, for three to four hours per day.
Students may also use their three weeks for
internships and travel courses. Hiram’s
enrollment sets at 1,200 undergraduates with
31 percent of freshmen coming from the top
10 percent of their high school class (Hiram
College, 2010).
Tusculum College
Block Initiatives 9
Tusculum College’s 2010-2011 tuition
price, including room and board, is posted
as $27,920 per year, a sticker price less
than Colorado, Cornell, and Quest
(Tusculum College, 2010). Also, 97% of
Tusculum students receive some form of
financial aid. In 2008, 800 traditional
undergraduates attended Tusculum. The
average ACT score sets at 22 (lower than
both Colorado College and Cornell
College). The students’ average high
school GPA is 3.3, lower than Cornell but
higher than the University of Montana
Western (Tusculum College, 2010).
Data Collection and Analysis
This project used focus groups, in addition
to an investigation of the literature, as the
research method to answer the primary
questions:





“What are the costs and benefits of
the proposed strategic plan
initiatives?”
“Do the strategic initiatives meet the
needs of our current students?”
“Are there other initiatives that
should be considered as part of the
‘block plan enhancement’ goal?”
as well as two of the three subquestions:
“What strategic initiatives among the
four delineated in the Strategic Plan
would be
the best one to pilot
and implement next (following the
Living-Learning
Communities)?”
“Other than the Block and the
traditional semester calendar, what
other academic calendars exist?”
The site coordinator for this project at
Tusculum suggested the data collection
method of focus groups for this study. It
was determined that the best groups to
interview in a focus group style would be
faculty and staff in order to ascertain their
thoughts and feelings about the strategic
initiatives for the Block. Focus groups, as a
qualitative method in which a small group of
people are asked open-ended questions, have
become increasingly utilized (Patton, 2002).
Focus groups allow the researcher to hear
first-hand about the real-life circumstances
around the project questions. Although,
focus groups are generally conducted on
homogenous groups, they also can show if
any differences of opinion or varying
perspectives exist among different people
experiencing the same environment or
situation (Patton, 2002).
Focus group questions are arranged around
one topic, in this case, the proposed
initiatives to enhance the Block at Tusculum
(Patton, 2002). Individual groups typically
do not exceed 10 participants, and one
session lasts one to two hours. A focus
group session is basically an interview, but it
takes into account that people function in a
social setting with others. Participants can
comment or build on what their peers say
during the meeting, instead of answering
questions one-on-one in an interview. The
purpose of a focus group is to gather quality
information in a social setting, and those
involved can either agree or disagree with
one another without consequence (Patton,
2002).
Focus groups serve as a respectable research
method for several reasons. They are
efficient in terms of time and money, as the
researcher can speak with several people in
a short period of time (Patton, 2002). The
group’s interaction yields richer responses
than perhaps in one-on-one interviews. The
researcher should be able to ascertain
whether group members agree or disagree
and identify trends across responses.
Block Initiatives 10
However, limitations include needing to
restrict the number of questions based on
time allotted. In addition, individuals’
comments may be hindered in order to allow
time for other participants to speak (Patton,
2002).
For this study, faculty and staff each
answered a separate interview protocol list
of questions, but much overlap between the
question sets existed (Appendix B). For
both groups, the protocol sections included
the following: Baseline, Costs and Benefits,
Current Students’ Needs, Other Initiatives,
Next to Implement, and Alternative
Calendar. Faculty answered a greater
number of questions than did staff in the
Costs and Benefits and Next to Implement
areas, because they are better equipped to
respond to inquiries regarding course
preparation, in-class experiences, and
instruction.
After receiving approval from Vanderbilt
University’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) and Tusculum College’s Associate
Provost for Academic Affairs (she did not
deem that the proposal required forwarding
to the IRB), plans to organize focus groups
moved forward. To solicit volunteers for the
focus groups, the provost sent an email
(Appendix C) to all faculty and staff with
Tusculum email addresses requesting they
participate on a voluntary basis. The email
also included information concerning the
location as well as time slots available for
faculty and staff groups. The goal was to
keep the faculty and staff in separate
sessions in accordance with the interview
protocols. The site coordinator’s office
scheduled the volunteers in groups
according to specific times. On the day of
the focus groups, each participant was given
a consent form by the principal investigator
(Appendix D) with a place to check whether
he or she agreed to audio recording during
the session as well as a signature line.
Copies of the consent forms were made
available to each faculty and staff member
before the departed from the room.
The focus group participants were arranged
into two faculty groups and two staff ones.
The self-reported ages of the focus group
respondents ranged from 25 to 65. Overall,
two participants were in their twenties,
seven thirties, five in their forties, three in
their fifties, five sixties, and one person who
specified “over 21.” One respondent wrote
down “6-,” and could possibly be over age
65, the oldest age reported.
The first time slot (9:00 a.m.) belonged to
faculty, and included five people (two
females, and three males). One male
checked the box on the consent form that he
did not permit the session to be audio
recorded, so this focus group session was
not recorded. At 11:00 a.m., the first staff
group met and included five females and
three males. All members consented to
voice recording, so this session was taped.
The third focus group of the day was
scheduled for staff, and several people had
signed up for this time slot. However, only
one staff person came at the appointed time,
so she left and returned later to join in with
the faculty focus group. It is unclear as to
why none of the other staff members for the
1:00 p.m. meeting did not come, although
participants in the following faculty focus
group expressed some confusion over the
email they had received with details about
the meeting times.
The last focus group of the day met at 3:00
p.m. and included nine faculty members and
one staff member (from the 1:00 staff
group). It should be noted that the
investigator assumes the participants in this
group were indeed faculty members as
planned; they were not questioned regarding
Block Initiatives 11
this point. For focus groups, a manageable
size per session was desired. The sample
size ultimately resulted based on willingness
to volunteer for, and then come to, the focus
groups. However, these focus groups can be
considered representative of all faculty and
staff at Tusculum.
The total number of focus group participants
throughout the day reached 23: 14 faculty
and nine staff. The goal number for the
study had been between 10 and 14 staff and
10 to 14 faculty members, total, in order to
keep the numbers manageable in terms of
the volunteers’ ability and ease of
participation. Tusculum employs about 84
faculty, and nearly 200 staff members,
according to the college’s website, or 76
faculty and 228 staff according to the human
resources office (Tusculum College, 2010;
Sonner, 2010). For the purposes of the
following calculations, human resources’
figures provide the basis. Note that some
faculty members also act as administrators
and so listed in both capacities online. In
other words, some faculty members counted
in the 84 are also counted in the 200, which
lowers the percentage of the staff that the for
which the focus group participants account
(Tusculum College, 2010.)
The faculty volunteers made up slightly
more than 18% of the college’s total faculty,
and the staff participants composed only
about 4%. Another way to look at the focus
group participants alongside Tusculum’s
faculty and staff as a whole besides quantity
includes total years of service. Among the
84 faculty members, 72 (almost 86%) have
worked at the college for 20 or fewer years,
while only three have worked at Tusculum
for more than 40 years. Of the 14 faculty
focus group participants, 12 (about 86%)
had worked at Tusculum for less than 11
years, and no one had served more than 30.
In terms of years worked at Tusculum, the
focus group faculty closely matched the
faculty at large.
All staff members in the focus groups had
worked at Tusculum for 20 or fewer years,
with almost 78% having no more than 10
years of service. Among all staff,
approximately 82% began working at
Tusculum in the last 10 years (Sonner,
2010). Based on the start dates of the
college’s staff as of December 2009, the
staff participants of the November focus
groups are representative in terms of years
worked at Tusculum.
Another way in which the focus group
participants closely mirrored all of
Tusculum’s faculty and staff is by gender.
About 65% of the focus group volunteers, or
15 of 23, were female based on the
investigator’s observation. Similarly, as of
December 2009, approximately 65% of all
faculty were female and 60% of all staff
members were female (Sonner, 2010).
Finally, in terms of age, the faculty and staff
focus group members combined, 58% were
under age 50, according to the ages they
self-reported on the informed consent forms.
About 65% of all staff were under 50 years
of age at the end of 2009, based on their
birth years (Sonner, 2010). Among all of
Tusculum’s faculty, nearly 54% were under
age 50 in 2009, again based on birth years
(Sonner, 2010). In this way, the focus
groups continued to represent the larger staff
and faculty population.
Initially this study was intended to be a
mixed-methods research project with a
survey designed and meant for Tusculum
undergraduate students. However, due to an
unexpected decrease in research personnel,
it became necessary to abandon the
quantitative portion of the study. A purely
qualitative study fit the research questions
Block Initiatives 12
and satisfactorily served the site coordinator.
From the beginning, she had asked for focus
groups to be conducted, and this study met
that request.
A separate research team working with
Tusculum on a separate study administered
surveys to students. So in the end, by not
utilizing surveys for this study, students
were saved from survey fatigue. In addition,
while not holding focus groups with students
could be a limitation, the research questions
lent themselves to the faculty and staff
instead. However, student focus groups
would have provided another dimension of
feedback from a third group of involved
participants (in addition to faculty and staff)
and could have influenced the conclusions
and recommendations made herein. Further
research regarding the initiatives should
include student interviews or focus groups
for good measure. The other research team
did not survey faculty or staff, focusing only
on students for data collection.
After the protocol was approved and the
focus group conducted, additional questions
came to mind as well as better ways to word
questions that had been already asked. The
focus groups were over, so it was too late to
edit the lists of questions for faculty and
staff. Perhaps if the protocol had been
piloted during a rehearsal, then awkward
wording would have come to light along
with other questions that could have been
added or substituted to more precisely
answer the research questions. Also, in
hindsight, more probing questions should
have been incorporated into the focus group
meetings.
Detailed notes taken during the focus groups
along with additional notes made while
listening to the voice recordings served to
present trends in the responses. First,
common responses were uncovered with in
the staff and faculty focus groups separately.
Then, from both faculty and staff focus
groups, trend responses that connected both
segments of participants also provided
information for themes stretching beyond
the boundary of faculty or staff. The table
below provides a snapshot of the most
common responses that surfaced in the focus
groups as they relate to each initiative. In
addition several matrices were constructed
to answer the project questions and address
each initiative (Appendix E). Matrices
included project question by initiative,
project question with corresponding focus
groups questions, initiatives with focus
group questions, and project questions by
methods. Baseline information gathered at
the beginning of the focus groups is
reflected in Appendix F.
The remaining sub-question that the focus
groups did not address: “How have
Colorado College and Cornell College
changed their version of the Block, if at all,
in order to manage student expectations and
produce better learning outcomes?” was
answered by the phone calls with Colorado
and Cornell faculty, the colleges’ websites,
and literature about Colorado’s block plan.
Trends from Focus Groups
Initiative 4.1 Initiative 4.2
Initiative
4.4
Concern for
Concern for
Staff: For
commuters,
commuters,
athletes,
athletes,
working
working
students
students
Difficult for
Difficult for
Faculty:
the sciences
the sciences
Against
Change
Change
recruiting
recruiting
Scheduling
Academic
issues
time
Faculty: If
Faculty: If
optional
Optional
Block Initiatives 13

Findings
Initiative 4.1: Provide the opportunity for
students to take two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a seven-week (two
blocks) period.

Primary Question 1: “What are the costs
and benefits of the proposed strategic plan
initiatives?”
For each initiative, staff and faculty focus
group volunteers answered questions
concerning the costs and benefits. Initiative
4.1 in the strategic planning committee’s
recommendations for enhancing the Block
involves changing at least some courses into
seven-week, or two-block, courses and
pairing them, so that students take two
courses concurrently. Neither the staff nor
the faculty members who participated in the
focus groups especially favored this
initiative. The questions posed to the staff
for 4.1’s costs and benefits are as follows:


In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to “take two
compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a sevenweek period” would affect how
you feel about your job at
Tusculum?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
The wording of the questions differed
slightly for the faculty focus groups:

In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to “take two
compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a sevenweek period” would affect how
you feel about your position at
Tusculum?

If Tusculum enacted the initiative
of “two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a sevenweek period,” how would that
change your course preparation?
Classroom instruction?
If Tusculum enacted the initiative
of “two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a sevenweek period,” would you
consider leaving your academic
appointment at Tusculum?
Would you leave?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
Costs
Participants in the staff group expressed
concern that this type of schedule change
would affect the institution’s recruiting
message, since not all classes would
function on one Block. They voiced that
some subjects such as education work better
on the Block than they would over the
course of seven weeks. Faculty also
commented that the sciences would not
work well in seven weeks due to space and
equipment limitations. Faculty worried that
running some courses on a Block plan,
which lasts for 18 weekdays, and others in
seven weeks would make coordinating
schedules too difficult. In addition, the
entire faculty but one spoke to the sentiment
offered by one of member that they would
“hate to see us move away from block
entirely.” They thought it could appear
conceptually attractive, but as one person
who had communicated with Colorado
College when working on the initial Block
plan said, “you do the block or you don’t do
the block.” In general, the faculty indicated
the seven-week schedule would be a mistake
and would result in a high turnover in
faculty, if the administration required the
Block Initiatives 14
initiative as mandatory for all professors and
courses.
Benefits
On the other hand, staff felt that the sevenweek courses could serve as an
improvement for faculty, simply due to
more time for each course. Some subjects,
for example business, may be better served
by two blocks, as both staff and faculty
articulated. Classes such as athletic training
and Reading and Language Arts (which is
an education course) already operate on a
two-block schedule. Faculty and staff
reiterated that although most classes
currently last for three hours per day,
academic time is supposed to span from
8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., already
encompassing morning and afternoon. As
one staff member said, “We sell it (the
Block) as 8:30 to 3:30 academic time.”
With this frame of mind, moving to a
schedule that featured both morning and
afternoon classes each day would not hurt.
There arose some sense that members of the
faculty would be willing to try the two-block
courses if it was presented in an informal
and experimental manner. One faculty
person thought more time for classes would
be an improvement. Another participant
shared that athletic training classes have run
on two blocks for five or six years. Also,
the education course, Reading and Language
Arts operates on two blocks, so Tusculum
has at least a small amount of experience in
running both block-length and seven-week
courses. Two faculty members thought this
initiative would suit business courses well,
citing 18 days as too short a period of time
to grasp business concepts and build teams.
Another faculty member mentioned
converting computer science courses to this
two-block format. The benefits of this
initiative outweigh the costs according to the
faculty and staff.
Primary Question 2: “Do the
strategic initiatives meet the needs of our
current students?”
The following questions were posed to
faculty and staff focus groups concerning
whether Initiative 4.1 met the needs of
current students:


Which, if any, of these initiatives
meets the needs of Tusculum’s
current students? (Two courses in
seven weeks, One course split
between morning and afternoon
in the Block, Testing Center.)
Which one(s) and how?
Which ones, if any, do not meet
the needs of Tusculum’s current
students? (Two courses in seven
weeks, One course split between
morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Why
not?
Faculty and staff members agreed that
changing the course schedule to two courses
per seven weeks did not meet the overall
needs of Tusculum’s current students. They
said this was the case particularly for student
athletes who train in the afternoons as well
as for working students who go to work after
class. In addition, the consensus was that if
the administration implemented this
initiative, the college would be moving
away from its niche, which is the Block.
The respondents did not want the institution
to lose its identifying feature, that which
distinguishes it from other colleges and
universities.
Literature on Initiative 4.1: Course pairings
Block Initiatives 15
To further explore the initiative to institute
parallel courses in terms of what courses
should be paired and how, a thorough
investigation of existing literature, including
best practices, was conducted. This
initiative involves some, if not all, courses
changing from one per block to two over the
span of seven weeks. To determine to
which courses this should apply, the
strategic planning committee would
organize a faculty taskforce in summer
2010. This taskforce would then need to
consider the curriculum of each course to
first decide if it should change from one
Block to seven weeks. They would also
need to decide which courses would
successfully pair together or could run as
interdisciplinary courses based on subject
and, as suggested in a faculty focus group,
conceptual density. For example, the faculty
thought biology may not pair well with
chemistry, but a more appropriate set may
be composition with literature.
One way to introduce the pairing of courses
is by developing teaching teams with
disciplines that naturally fit well together
(Braxton and Del Favero, 2000). Besides
two faculty members from the same
academic department teaching together, they
can teach cross-departmental courses (Bess,
2000). Such collaboration between
professors can be rewarding for them
(Braxton and Del Favero, 2000). In
addition, faculty members can offer courses
in which students make conceptual and
philosophical connections across different
academic subjects, for example, the
sociology and psychology example at
Cornell (Bess, 2000).
The Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development (ASCD) released
a 1989 report that cited curriculum
integration as a top issue in higher education
(Burton, 2001). The problems with
curriculum included a lack of focus and
structure (potpourri) and departmental turf
wars (polarity). The solution to the problems
of potpourri and polarity comes in the form
of curriculum integration with a carefully
thought-out scope and sequence of courses
along with a combination of
interdisciplinary and discipline-specific
courses (Burton, 2001). The term crossdisciplinary means that courses of several
disciplines are positioned side by side with
no formal integration.
“Pluridisciplinary” indicates the course
disciplines are related (such as math and
physics). Finally, “transdisciplinary” means
that the curriculum begins with a problem
and uses knowledge from many or all
disciplines to solve it (Burton, 2001). For
example, the University of Hawaii uses
curriculum integration by forming linkages
in knowledge, grouping courses by theme,
and encouraging learners to see connections
(Burton, 2001).
Higher education institutions including
Birmingham-Southern College have begun
to blend business with liberal arts, while
those such as Dominican University have
combined liberal arts and sciences (Paris,
2007). Meanwhile, Washtenaw Community
College in Ann Arbor, Michigan provides
cross-disciplinary studies among the arts and
humanities, natural sciences, technology,
and social science (Altieri and Cygnar,
1997). Cy-Fair even utilizes an
interdisciplinary office arrangement for
faculty to collaborate across disciplines; for
example, traditional departments are not
clustered together in wings or on the same
floor; instead, an English professor may sit
next to a business professor next to a science
professor, and so on (Ashburn, 2006).
A symposium was held to address concerns
about a decline in college graduates in the
Block Initiatives 16
liberal arts concurrent to a rise in graduates
from pre-professional and technical
programs (Paris, 2007). The symposium
explored measures institutions are taking to
promote an interdisciplinary approach to
undergraduate education, primarily as that
incorporates liberal arts and business. The
idea of interdisciplinary courses, or
“blending,” combines traits of a traditional
liberal arts curriculum into a business
program. Birmingham-Southern College
blends business and liberal arts, while
Dominican University integrates the liberal
arts with sciences. At Mars Hill College,
students of all majors engage in a course
called Civic Life, or “what constitutes a
‘good person’” to provide an in-class
experience that spans all academic subjects
(Paris, 2007). As another example,
Bridgewater College provides
interdisciplinary courses that integrate the
liberal arts and professional education
(Paris, 2007).
Washtenaw Community College, founded in
1966 in Michigan, has a core curriculum
composed of four skills categories:
communication, critical thinking, math, and
computer literacy (Altieri and Cygnar,
1997). It also features the following content
areas: art and humanities, natural science,
technology, and social science. The core is
imposed across the curriculum with crossdisciplinary subjects. Accreditation
requirements led them to build such a core
beginning in 1993. Washtenaw’s goal for
the core was to serve faculty and students.
However, this included eliminating more
than 100 courses from the curriculum on the
basis of faculty-driven evaluation. Faculty
and students became engaged in the process
of forming the core, as well, and the
conclusion is that the resulting courses
provide all parties involved with flexibility
and fluidity at Washtenaw (Altieri and
Cygnar, 1997).
Considering interdisciplinary education
from a different lens, at Brown University,
students create their own curricula
(Donnelly-Smith, 2008). In 1969, Brown
officially removed the general education
core curriculum from its degree
requirements, and this remained unchanged
for over 40 years. In 2007, the university
revisited the curriculum and laid a new
framework for liberal education, however
still without requirement specific general
education courses. For Brown, the academic
plan concerns quality and context instead of
university-specified content. Courses allow
for collaboration and application, while
providing students with more choices and
freedom in creating their schedules
(Donnelly-Smith, 2008).
One author extends some caution
concerning the trend toward
interdisciplinary courses. His concern rests
in whether interdisciplinary work will
simply one day recreate the departmental
silos that have existed in higher education
(Jacob, 2009). However, interdisciplinary
efforts currently unite separate departments
for efficiency, common efforts, and for grant
purposes. This trend stems from
postmodern rumblings in the 1950s, with a
synthesis of themes in American culture
(Jacob, 2009).
Today there spans a diffusion of ideas across
humanities, social sciences, as well as
education and other applied fields.
Information flowed across the boundaries of
these disciplines. The author questions
whether existing interdisciplinary fields are
truly so, or if academic specialization exists
within them. Interdisciplinary courses may
lead to another level of fragmentation as
many new offices and centers pop up, so
they require strong, high-quality disciplines
to maintain partnerships. While perhaps
Block Initiatives 17
interdisciplinary curriculum may not be the
ultimate panacea for higher education, it
does allow professors flexibility in
collaborating with other academic
departments besides their own (Jacob, 2009)
Literature on Initiative 4.1: Calendar
lengths
When considering parallel courses, not only
what courses should be paired, but also the
proposed seven-week term, deserve
exploration in the literature. A study
concerning math and course scheduling
asked “does the length of term (affect) the
final grade or anxiety level?” for statistics
students in 16-week semesters, five-week
summer terms, and inter-sessions between
semesters (Bell, 2001). Using the Statistical
Anxiety Rating Scale (STARS), the results
showed course length has a relationship with
anxiety, with the shorter length associated
with increased anxiety (Bell, 2001).
Another study also echoes this phenomenon
of increased student stress as a result of an
accelerated course (Daniel, 2000).
sample of 387 students at a community
college in Southern California. The subjects
were each taking one of the following
courses: geometry, sociology, criminology,
biology, and geology. The researcher
administered a pre-test, post-test, and
questionnaire to the students, and ultimately
found no difference in learning acquisition
existed (Aguilar, 2004).
Another study considered word-processing
courses in a traditional semester and in a
one-course-at-a-time format lasting 18 days
at a rural, western university in the United
States (Scott, 2009). The students selfselected into either of the course sections.
Scott found that the students in the semesterlong course out-performed students in a
compressed course based on the post-test
(2009). Cy-Fair College, which opened in
2003, offers English as a Second Language
(ESL) classes in blocks taken back-to-back
(Ashburn, 2006). The idea behind this
schedule was that students would learn
faster due to immersion and that students
would support one another through the
process.
Research was conducted on a block-style
accounting class, which lasted three hours
per day for a period of three weeks (Howell
and Johnson, 1982). The findings showed
the course benefited students who worked
full-time, but a marginal difference occurred
in the increased stress exhibited in the
compressed calendar compared to the
semester schedule. Howell and Johnson
conclude that compressed courses can work
without compromising learning
effectiveness (1982).
Western State College in Colorado operates
on a year-round calendar, with four 12-week
and eight-week terms replacing the previous
16-week schedule (Cash et al, 1993). It
experiences more efficient classroom
scheduling, and more classroom interaction,
with the shorter terms. The new calendar
increased flexibility and improved faculty
development, teaching, and learning
innovation. Students take fewer classes per
term while earning semester-hour credit.
A separate investigation into whether a
difference in learning acquisition existed for
students in a six-week and 16-week term as
well as to describe students’ perceptions of
these differing calendar lengths (Aguilar,
2004). The study included a non-random
Students preferred short terms in order to
take faster-paced courses and graduate more
quickly (Aguilar, 2004). The students
expressed they felt a higher level of
motivation to complete a course that met for
fewer weeks. However, disadvantages of
Block Initiatives 18
the compressed six-week courses included
stress and the tendency to fall behind if
students miss class due to illness. Still,
Aguilar maintains that “the length of the
semester has no significant effect on student
achievement” one way or the other (2004).
In a different study, short courses in
psychology resulted in higher pre- and posttest scores than traditional courses (Daniel,
2000). Accelerated educational philosophy
courses produced higher scores on final
exams, and compressed courses in language
and literature have also shown positive
results (Daniel, 2000).
As with students in the Southern California
community college, students at the
University of Phoenix also prefer shorter
terms, where classes meet for five weeks
instead of a full semester (Bugay, 2000). In
this format, adult students complete degrees
in less than half the time of a day student
taking classes in a traditional semester.
Phoenix’s format provides an accelerated
pace and modular curriculum that is
consistent across professors teaching the
same course (Bugay, 2000).
According to David Wesson’s theoretical
framework, “decentralized timetabling
process to limit the flexibility of course
schedules” (Hill, 2008). University course
schedules, or “timetabling,” when courses
are taught, including days, times, rooms, and
instructors, also who needs to enroll (Hill,
2008). The Hill article’s goal is to “fill the
gap in non-mathematical and –
computational approaches.” The primary
constraints are “scheduling courses based on
student preference.” Timetable constraints
exist dependent on one another (Hill, 2008).
The Threshold of Rigidity represents the
point where no courses can be added and no
schedules can be changed without disrupting
all the rest (Hill, 2008).
Hill conducted a study of the course
offerings at the University of Toronto
Mississauga (UTM) from fall 2001 to spring
2008 (2008). UTM experienced problems
with an increase in enrollment without the
same increase in instructional space as well
as a lack of centralization and lack of
flexibility in timetabling. Any change
requires several people to get involved with
the timetable. Overall classroom space per
student decreased. Night classes have
increased, and contact hours have decreased.
The current timetable does not take into
account student demand; centralization will
incorporate student demand. There is a
distinct need to gain the faculty’s acceptance
and backing, as well as to heed their
concerns regarding the timetable (Hill,
2008).
Some colleges long ago started the fall
semester in late September and the spring
semester in February (Malesic, 2009).
Semester means “six-month period” in its
Latin roots and is the traditional format for
college calendars even today (Malesic,
2009). Colleges and universities of great
diversity have embarked on calendar
changes in the past, typically moving to a
traditional semester system. Miami
University of Ohio traded a quarter system
for a semester schedule in 1976, Western
Iowa Technical Community College moved
from an 11-week schedule to a semester in
1994, and LaGrange College changed to a
semester system in 1999 (Matzelle et al,
1995; Gulley and Floyd, 2002).
Many institutions have changed from a
short-term calendar to a semester-long
calendar. This conversion presents
disadvantages and advantages, for example
in the case of Reading Area Community
College in Pennsylvania (Matzelle et al,
1995). A survey was given to the staff and
students concerning the campus changing to
Block Initiatives 19
a semester schedule. In terms of academic
issues, the semester looks beneficial, and
concerning financial matters, conversion to
the new calendar is a feasible option.
Reading looks at 11 other institutions that
had made a calendar change or were
considering the transition. Western Iowa
Technical Community College changes from
an 11-week schedule to a semester system in
1994, which resulted in a decline in parttime students.
Ten universities in Florida and Iowa
changed from a quarter to a semester model.
The general finding was a decline in junior
and senior credit load. Pennsylvania State
University (Penn State) changed from term
to semester, because terms ended in June,
which prevented graduates from an early,
and thus competitive, start in the job market
(Matzelle et al, 1995). This is also true for
students looking for summer-only jobs, not
necessarily post-graduation careers only
(Malesic). Also, the term calendar
prevented students from a smooth transfer to
Penn State, in terms of transfer credit hours
(Matzelle et al, 1995).
The Virginia Community College System
changed from quarters to semesters in 1988,
and as with Western Iowa, experienced a
decrease in part-time students. Classes
started in August instead of September. The
number of full-time enrolled students rose at
the same rate as before the conversion
(Matzelle et al, 1995). In Florida and Iowa,
“course completion rate decreases under a
new semester system.” The College of the
Redwoods decided to stay on quarters due to
student preference and faculty support, as
well as the flexibility of the schedule and
how it allows for student seasonal
employment. Miami University of Ohio
changed to a quarter to a semester schedule
in 1976 to allow for extensive student
projects (Matzelle et al, 1995).
Arapahoe Community College changed
from a quarter to a semester calendar in
1984. While enrollment initially dropped, it
later increased. “On the quarter system, one
hardly got students up and running before
it’s time to stop” (Matzelle et al, 1995).
Lansing Community College also
experiences a decline in enrollment after
transitioning from a term to semester
system, and there is no indication its
numbers returned to normal. Northeastern
University in Boston changed from a 10week term to a semester, because the term
length was not long enough for students to
complete papers and projects. The terms’
starts and stops created a calendar disruption
for Northeastern, thus serving as another
reason to move to a semester (Matzelle et al,
1995).
A semester calendar has its advantages;
including the ability of students to enter the
job market a month earlier in the summer
than some term schedules permit (Matzelle
et al, 1995). It also provides more planning
time for faculty and processing time (such as
with registration) for staff. Incoming
transfer students favored the semester
schedule, as did the current day students, in
Matzelle’s example; however, evening
students preferred the term calendar.
Slightly more than half of the day students
indicated, though, that a term schedule
allowed them to complete more courses
during the year. Conversion (from term to
semester) costs included computer program
changes, but the overall cost was deemed
“economically feasible” (Matzelle et al,
1995).
Porterville College in California conducted a
student and faculty survey regarding
changing from an 18-week semester to one
lasting 16 weeks (Carley, 2002). Between
4,000 and 5,000 students attend Porterville,
which employs 87 full-time faculty and over
Block Initiatives 20
100 adjuncts. The student survey explored
obstacles to class attendance, days and time
of classes, summer and winter sessions, and
preferences. Over half of the students
surveyed preferred the 16-week semester to
one running 18 weeks. Faculty (full-time
and adjunct) also completed a survey about
willingness to teach classes in the summer,
winter, and on Fridays. Their responses
showed that 50% were willing to teach all,
but only 30% were willing to teach during
the second summer session, which runs
through late July (Carley, 2002).
Los Rios Community College District
representatives spoke to colleges that had
changed from 18-week semesters to 15- or
16-week “compressed” calendars (Beachler,
2003). More than a third of faculty whom
were asked thought students experienced
greater success on the compressed calendar.
In addition, 40% of faculty thought the
compressed calendar “adversely affects
student anxiety” (Beachler, 2003). More
than 25% recognized the negative impact on
time for extracurricular activities, however,
and worried about the effect a shortened
schedule might have on struggling students.
In addition, compressed courses can be
labor-intensive for faculty (Daniel, 2000).
Despite the abundance of institutions
operating on semesters, compressed or
accelerated schedules are a growing trend in
higher education, coordinating with evening
classes, minimesters, and three-year degrees
(Gallo and Odu, 2009; Carlson and Lipka,
2009). The early form of these programs
arose in the 1970s along with weekend
colleges for students to save time and money
(Boyd, 2007; Daniel, 2000). By the 1990s,
Western State College in Colorado operated
on a year-round calendar with alternating
three-month and two-month long courses
(Cash, 1993). Fast-paced schedules may
satisfy student preference, but concern about
satisfying learning outcomes still lingers
(Gallo and Odu, 2009; Daniel, 2000).
Following this line of students’ desire to
complete more courses in less time, an even
more recent theme than short terms is the
three-year degree (Carlson and Lipka,
2009). At Southern New Hampshire
University, students can effectively save a
year of tuition payments and graduate in
three years without needing to take summer,
night, or weekend courses. Manchester
College, however, does use two summers of
web courses called “Fast Forward” to speed
its students along. Southern has a 90%
retention rate, it should be noted, although
three-year degrees have critics. Some
educators debate whether this shorter stint
short-changes students out of the full college
experience (Carlson and Lipka, 2009).
Despite this kind of criticism, “accelerated
learning programs are one of the fasting
growing transformations in higher
education” (Boyd, 2007).
Beachler found the benefits of the
compressed calendar include increased
student persistence, quality of education,
class participation, and course availability
(2003). The compressed calendar positively
impacted annual enrollment, and the time
available for faculty’s office hours for
students did not change, whether more or
less hours, for 66% of the faculty
respondents. A third of the faculty indicated
the length of time for course preparation was
not affected by the compressed calendar.
Colleges needed somewhere between one to
two years to work out unevenness in a new
calendar format. To prevent a possible
decline in student activities on the
compressed calendar, colleges recommend
building activities into a common lunch hour
when students are on campus but not in class
(Beachler, 2003).
Block Initiatives 21
Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing
programs started in 1971, and by 2007, 197
such programs existed (Beal, 2007).
Students in these programs, which typically
run for 12 to 18 months, are older, in
general, than traditional students. Some
faculty prefer teaching students in the
accelerated program to those in the
traditional program. Duke University
School of Nursing has received funding to
conduct research on questions related to
accelerated nursing programs (research not
yet available) (Beal, 2007).
Undergraduate programs are not the only
ones on the fast track; medical schools also
provide the opportunity to accelerate in joint
Bachelor of Science/Doctor of Medicine
programs (Borges, 2007). One author
hypothesizes that students in traditional
four-year M.D. programs come out ahead of
those in accelerated ones in terms of career
decisions. The study of 441 medical
students found that those in non-accelerated
nursing programs demonstrated a greater
grasp on their career goals than those in the
joint program, but this may be due to
preexisting personal characteristics and not
the actual course schedule itself (Borges,
2007).
George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. is exploring the
implementation of a year-round college
calendar, to increase enrollment (Dervarics,
2004). Dartmouth College in Hanover, New
Hampshire started a year-round calendar in
1972 with “fourquarters,” which includes 12
quarters in four years of undergraduate
education. This schedule provides time for
study abroad and internships. Dartmouth
provides institutional aid when the Pell
Grant is not available in the summer
(Dervarics, 2004).
The United Negro College Fund (UNCF)
recommends a year-round calendar with
sections called “threemesters” instead of
semesters (Dervarics, 2004). For example,
Washington and Lee University in
Lexington, Virginia operates on trimesters,
with two 12-week terms and one six-week
term (Washington and Lee University). The
1,777 students may use the six-week term
for study abroad or for more focused courses
(Washington and Lee). The UNCF is
calling for a change in Pell Grant eligibility
so that low-income students may attend and
receive aid during the summer. The fall and
spring academic calendar came about “when
most Americans worked in agriculture,” but
a year-round schedule would allow students
in remedial courses to enroll in fewer classes
at a time and meet the prerequisites for
college-level courses without falling behind
(Dervarics, 2004).
Focus Group Summary
The staff focus group participants stressed
the costs of Initiative 4.1, parallel courses,
would include redesigning and printing
admissions marketing materials that present
the new course format. In addition, staff
indicated that education courses would not
function as well as a seven-week schedule
with another course. Similarly, faculty
expressed that the sciences would not work
as well in a parallel fashion but thought
business courses may be better suited to this
schedule than the Block. Faculty also saw
this initiative as a movement away from the
Block. However, they were open to trying
parallel courses if the college introduced the
initiative in a voluntary way. Faculty said
there may be turnover if the administration
required all professors to transfer every
course to a parallel format. Furthermore,
faculty and staff did not feel parallel courses
met the current needs of athletes,
commuters, and working students.
Block Initiatives 22
Initiative 4.2: Change current class
scheduling to minimize challenge of
maintaining academic engagement for three
hours and to increase opportunities for
student and faculty outside-of-class
interaction.

Primary Question 1: “What are the
costs and benefits of the proposed strategic
plan initiatives?”
Faculty and staff focus groups also
responded to questions regarding the
initiative to change the time of day
classes meet from three hours in either
the morning or afternoon to one and one
half hours in both morning and
afternoon. Questions posed to the staff
are as follows:


In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to “move
current class scheduling…to
meeting 1 ½ hours in the
morning and 1 ½ hours in the
afternoon for 18 days” would
affect how you feel about your
job at Tusculum?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
The questions were worded differently for
faculty, as follows:
 In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to “move
current class scheduling…to
meeting 1 ½ hours in the
morning and 1 ½ hours in the
afternoon for 18 days” would
affect how you feel about your
position at Tusculum?
 If Tusculum enacted the initiative
to “move current class
scheduling…to meeting 1 ½
hours in the morning and 1 ½

hours in the afternoon for 18
days,” how would that change
your course preparation?
Classroom instruction?
If Tusculum enacted the initiative
to “move current class
scheduling…to meeting 1 1/2
hours in the morning and 1 ½
hours in the afternoon for 18
days,” would you consider
leaving your academic
appointment at Tusculum?
Would you leave?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
Costs
Overall, the faculty were more open to this
idea than staff, although, only on a voluntary
implementation. One staff person who was
also a former student said this measure
would “cause havoc,” as others chimed in
with concerns about parking, classroom
space, and logistics. Echoing a downside to
the aforementioned initiative, staff
expressed concern regarding the cost for
students who would have to forego
afternoon jobs. They also saw additional
costs for athletes, who currently use the half
of they day they are not in class to train, as
well as commuters, who would have to
remain parked on campus all day. Another
worry involved a hindrance to afternoon
studying, since students would be in class
both morning and afternoon. Staff cited the
need to produce all new recruiting materials
for a new campaign, since classes would no
longer meet in one three-hour period per
day. In addition, staff said that scheduling
practicum experiences and laboratory
components would become a problem under
this initiative, and the faculty echoed this
concern.
Block Initiatives 23
The faculty also cited potential problems
with this initiative, because they said it
would “destroy continuity” in the Block. In
addition, they did not want to have to take a
break after an hour and a half if they were in
the middle of a concept in class. Two
faculty members indicated they would
probably leave their positions at Tusculum if
this initiative were enacted, citing it as the
“final straw.” Another faculty member in
the same focus group said this schedule
change would force him into retirement. On
a larger scale, the campus would need
cultural change to create more interaction
between faculty and students, and faculty
shared uncertainty that this move could
produce such.
Benefits
On the other hand, one staff person insisted
that academic time begins and 8:30 a.m. and
lasts until 3:30 p.m., so this initiative should
not cause problems or result in conflict for
faculty. The faculty indicated that if split
courses were optional, instead of enforced
for all faculty and every course, then faculty
felt more open to trying the schedule. The
staff and faculty certainly saw more costs of,
than benefits from, this initiative.
Primary Question 2: “Do the
strategic initiatives meet the needs of our
current students?”
Staff and faculty focus groups responded to
the following questions regarding whether
split courses met current students’ needs:

Which, if any, of these initiatives
meets the needs of Tusculum’s
current students? (Two courses in
seven weeks, One course split
between morning and afternoon
in the Block, Testing Center.)
Which one(s) and how?

Which ones, if any, do not meet
the needs of Tusculum’s current
students? (Two courses in seven
weeks, One course split between
morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Why
not?
The staff believed the initiative to split one
class between morning and afternoon for
one Block does not meet the needs of
Tusculum’s current students, because it
poses challenges for commuters, athletes,
and working students. While the faculty
was opposed to a mandatory switch to this
course schedule, they were open to offering
classes in this manner on a voluntary basis,
where faculty members would choose to
participate. In a rather contradictory
fashion, while three faculty suggested they
would leave Tusculum due to this initiative,
this is the only measure to enhance the
Block that the faculty generally could accept
implementing.
Literature on Initiative 4.2: Course
schedules
A further investigation of split courses was
conducted by researching existing literature.
Depending on the institution, courses can be
scheduled at almost any time of day,
including evenings and Saturdays.
Typically, classes meet Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday for 50 minutes,
while others may meet Tuesday and
Thursday for 75 minutes (Gallo and Odu,
2009). However some institutions offer
Saturday courses that meet for a longer time
but only once per week, other classes meet
only one evening per week, and still others
meet only Monday and Wednesday during
the day. Course scheduling involves “how
often and for how long a course is taken”
(Gallo and Odu, 2009)
Block Initiatives 24
Gallo and Odu considered 116 Florida
community colleges students in three-, two-,
and one-day per week courses to flesh out
the spacing effect theory (2009). This
theory concerns “how variations in the
frequency and timing of instruction affect
student learning” (2009). They found that
although students preferred compressed or
intensive schedules, that course format is not
best for learning math. Colleges are moving
to compressed formats due to student
demand, funding, and competition. For
example, Florida’s community colleges
offer algebra in a variety of schedules from
one evening per week to Tuesday and
Thursday during the day, from traditional
semester to eight weeks (Gallo and Odu,
2009).
Cognitive learning theory suggests that
students retain material through practice
over time (Gallo and Odu, 2009). Shorter
sessions that are spread out with time
between enhance long-term memory and
retrieval. Knowledge retention is reportedly
not as successful with accelerated classes
(Daniel, 2000). Gallo’s algebra study
showed that students in algebra one day per
week (Saturday) scored lower on the final
exam than those in class two or three days
per week. However, the instructor’s gender
and years teaching significantly affected
achievement, so more variables were
involved than just course schedule (Gallo
and Odu, 2009).
At Western College in Colorado, classes do
not meet before 2:00 p.m. on Wednesdays,
when the college provides activities to
students for “Western Wednesdays.” In the
12-week terms, classes meet in 50-minute
modules Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and
Friday or in 100-minute segments Monday
and Thursday or Tuesday and Friday. In the
eight-week format, classes meet for 75
minutes Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and
Friday or for 150 minutes on Monday and
Thursday or Tuesday and Friday (Cash et al,
1993).
Focus Groups Summary
The staff’s main concerns regarding the split
courses initiative included potential costs for
athletes, commuters, and working students
who would need to be in class both morning
and afternoon as well as a concern over the
logistics of parking and space to
accommodate students remaining on campus
morning and afternoon. Faculty saw the
costs of this initiative as destroying the
continuity of the class meeting by breaking
after an hour and a half as well as possible
faculty departure if the administration
instituted split courses as mandatory for all.
However, faculty said this initiative would
meet current students’ needs if applied in a
voluntary fashion affecting only those
professors who wished to convert their
courses to meeting both morning and
afternoon.
Initiative 4.4: Reduce the pedagogical
limitations of the block by capturing as
much instructional time as possible in each
class session by removing assessment and
testing from class sessions.
The idea for a testing center came from a
male faculty member at Tusculum,
according to information provided by the
study’s contact person after a faculty
member of the focus groups mentioned him
by name during the session. The Tusculum
College Strategic Plan 2009-2014 indicates
the driver behind opening a centralized
assessment facility lies in providing
professors with additional classroom time
that they otherwise would spend
administering exams. Students would take
exams on their own time, outside of regular
class hours, at the center. This initiative’s
Block Initiatives 25
timeline begins with an investigation into
space in summer 2010, followed by a parttime staff person to operate the center in fall
2010. In the spring, the strategic planning
committee would pilot the testing center for
at least five courses. The course usage of
the center would be evaluated in summer
2011 and a decision reached about adding
additional (or all) courses to the testing
center or discontinuing its use (Strategic
Plan).
Primary Question 1: “What are the
costs and benefits of the proposed strategic
plan initiatives?”
The following questions regarding the costs
and benefits of the proposed testing center
were asked of the staff:


In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to remove
assessment from class sessions
and develop a Testing Center
would affect how you feel about
your job at Tusculum?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
For the faculty focus groups, the following
questions were posed:



In what ways, if at all, do you
think the initiative to remove
assessment from class sessions
and develop a Testing Center
would affect how you feel about
your position at Tusculum?
If Tusculum enacted the initiative
to remove assessment from class
sessions and develop a Testing
Center how would that change
your course preparation?
Classroom instruction?
If Tusculum enacted the initiative
to remove assessment from class

sessions and develop a Testing
Center would you consider
leaving your academic
appointment at Tusculum?
Would you leave?
How, if at all, would this
initiative cost you financially?
Costs
The monetary costs of piloting and
implementing the testing center would
include $13,000 annually for a part-time
facility coordinator, which suggests the
center will not remain open on a full-time
basis. In addition, if the campus needs to
add a computer lab, this initiative would cost
another one-time charge of $16,000. In
addition, Tusculum would spend $15,000 to
$30,000 on faculty development over the
course of three summers (Strategic Plan).
Thus, the testing center could cost $59,000
plus an additional $13,000 per year to
compensate the part-time staff person.
Faculty and staff answered questions
regarding the testing center initiative. A
clear divide existed between the faculty and
staff in terms of their sentiments for this
method of Block enhancement. The faculty
generally disagreed with testing center
initiative. They felt such a measure would
be a “disservice to students,” because by
removing assessment from the classroom, a
piece of learning would also disappear.
Instead, a few discussed adding a testing day
as the nineteenth day of each Block, thus
extending the Block by one day. Another
testing idea they talked about was adding a
finals week at the end of the semester during
which students would take final exams from
all their Block courses that semester. The
faculty talked through that proposal in terms
of how it would work but ultimately did not
all support it. They cited concerns over
retention, reasoning that the incorporation of
a finals week may weaken student
Block Initiatives 26
satisfaction and finally cause students to
withdraw or transfer.
One positive of a finals week, though, the
faculty thought would be course material
retention. One female faculty member
added that with the current testing structure
in the Block, students “cram it and forget it,”
whereas, a finals week would encourage
retaining course material for a longer period
of time than 18 days. Following that line of
thinking, a female staff person who
participated in one of the faculty groups
called the current Block a “binge and purge”
model, saying, “That’s what they call it.”
The aforementioned faculty member overtly
shot her a disapproving look, and the staff
person proceeded to downplay and even
retract her statement.
Benefits
The staff participants, as a whole, expressed
that a testing center would be excellent.
One person added she would not need to
proctor exams anymore if Tusculum
operated a testing center. However, the staff
were concerned about the cost for electronic
resources for computer-based assessment as
well as to develop and build the center. One
staff person commented that the Tennessee
Board of Regents (TBR) institutions run
testing centers, but unbeknownst to this
participant and as will be discussed later,
such facilities possess little in common with
Tusculum’s concept of a testing center.
Comparing these benefits to the above
description of costs, the costs outweigh the
benefits.
Primary Question 2:“Do the
strategic initiatives meet the needs of our
current students?”
Faculty and staff responded to the following
questions regarding whether this initiative
meets the needs of Tusculum’s current
students:


Which, if any, of these initiatives
meets the needs of Tusculum’s
current students? (Two courses in
seven weeks, One course split
between morning and afternoon
in the Block, Testing Center.)
Which one(s) and how?
Which ones, if any, do not meet
the needs of Tusculum’s current
students? (Two courses in seven
weeks, One course split between
morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Why
not?
The faculty wanted the testing center
completely removed from the list of
initiatives for Block enhancement, but the
staff wanted to keep only the testing center
as a possibility. Whereas the staff
participants agreed that a testing center
would meet Tusculum’s current students’
needs, the faculty were equally against this
initiative. The faculty indicated they want to
be present when their students are taking
exams to answer questions. They said
learning continues during assessment, so by
removing tests from class, students would
miss an important learning opportunity.
Literature on Initiative 4.4: Testing centers
To further understand the testing centers
initiative, a study of existing literature on
testing and center-type concepts was
conducted. First, it is important to establish
a foundation of knowledge regarding
assessment. Summative assessment
identifies the resulting learning after
students complete a course and measures
what the student achieved as a result of the
course (Melton, 1996; Yorke, 2003). With
formative, professors provide feedback to
Block Initiatives 27
their students along the way concerning their
learning (Melton, 1996). The purpose of
formative assessment involves contributing
to learning by providing information to the
students about their performance (Yorke,
2003). Assessment may be formal
(conducted by academic staff) or informal
(not included in the curriculum design)
(Yorke, 2003). Tests are given to reveal to
students their strengths, reveal the students’
progress to the professor, motivate and
evaluate students, and determine grades
(Grieve, 1990). Assessment may include
essay, multiple choice questions, recall
(such as completion and written response),
and true or false questions (Grieve, 1990).
Assessment should begin with the
professors’ learning objectives for the
students in a particular course, and these
objectives should be clearly stated (Palombo
and Banta, 1999). Objectives describe
behaviors students should be able to exhibit,
and learning goals involve understanding
concepts. Faculty members may wish to
develop matrices outlining the learning
objectives, activities (in class and assigned),
and modes of measuring that students
reached those objectives. Objectives may be
cognitive, affective, or skills-related.
Cognitive objectives involve thinking;
affective refers to attitude and values, and
skills concerns performance and practice.
The ultimate learning objective is critical
thinking, which students should demonstrate
via assessment (Palombo and Banta, 1999).
The concept of a testing center to the extent
that Tusculum envisions suggests that page
“one teacher cannot perform well every task
that teaching requires” thus other
professionals handle the assessment side of
education (Speck, 2000). These assessors,
who design evaluations and manage the
process, may require special training not
innate in faculty. Grading can become a
burden for professors who are otherwise
occupied with teaching and research.
Professors remain the content specialists for
courses in their fields. In addition, grading
of such assessments bears subjectivity, often
varying by faculty member (Speck, 2000).
While on a negative side, no common
definition of grading exists, but more
positively speaking, testing is flexible and
can adjust to various contexts as needed.
Through the testing and grading process, it
is important to consider that knowledge
generation, transmission, and application
connect with one another. Specifically, two
types of tests exist: criterion-referenced and
norm-referenced. Criterion refers to exams
that are locally developed; whereas, norm
texts are developed by the Education Testing
Services and expected to form a bell curve
(Speck, 2000).
Not much literature, or real-life examples,
exists on central testing centers for all of
students’ assessments on college campuses.
The most closely related concept involves
proctored exams for students taking tests for
distance learning courses. The National
College Testing Association provides
referrals for students in need of exam
proctors (Young, 2001). The Association
works with 187 colleges across 42 states.
Students may pay $10-25 to for the proctor
referral (Young, 2001). As someone alluded
to in the staff focus group, TBR institutions
operate testing centers for students taking
web-based courses through the Regents
Online Degree Program (RODP). The TBR
offers 28 testing center sites throughout the
state, including universities, community
colleges, and technical schools (Regents
Online Degree Program).
In Texas, 22 colleges and five public
libraries have partnered in an effort to
increase testing convenience for students in
Block Initiatives 28
distance learning courses (Young, 2001).
Previously, these students came to campus
to take proctored exams, but the
collaboration of the libraries and colleges
has created testing centers. Students from a
variety of colleges can arrive at a testing
center and take his or her exam, without
needing to drive far from home. These
centers are part of the Texas ComputerBased Testing Collaboration, coordinated by
the Associate Director of the University of
North Texas’ Center for Distributed
Learning. Students can take proctored exams
without necessarily going to the campus of
the institution with which they are studying.
Even before the testing centers, the Virtual
College of Texas, composed of community
colleges, offered a test-proctoring service
with pen and paper tests that the proctors
mailed to the students’ professors (Young,
2001).
The Associate Dean of the Urban Resource
Center at Florida Community College at
Jacksonville (FCCJ) has demonstrated that
proctored testing can be successful for
students in distance learning courses
(Lorenzetti, 2006). The proctors that the
National College Testing Association’s
Consortium of Testing Centers (CCTC) uses
are employees of their home college or
university. For proctored exams, students
must bring their photo IDs and provide a
signature. In addition, proctors receive a
password from the testing center to
administer the exam via Blackboard
(Content Management System) in an off-site
location (Lorenzetti, 2006).
A study by researchers from Ferris State
University and Pennsylvania College of
Technology involving 120 college students
in online courses compared proctored and
un-proctored exams (Lorenzetti, 2006).
They looked at a pre-test, posttest, and two
intervening quizzes. Traditional in-class
tests provide the benefit of face-to-face
contact, the opportunity for clarification on
exam instructions, supervision, and
feedback, and the results showed that
proctored exams encourage students to
“undertake their course study more
effectively” (Lorenzetti, 2006). The
researchers determined that online courses
with proctored testing are as effective as
text-based courses (Lorenzetti, 2006).
The Online Testing Coordinator for Pace
University and the National Coalition for
Telecommunications Education and
Learning Vocational Program at Pace
University in New York first piloted
proctors in spring 1999 and spring 2000 for
exams for Blackboard courses (Creating a
proctoring). Pace built a base of proctors
simply by placing the responsibility on its
students who are not near the university’s
physical proctoring area. Students may ask
nearly anyone to serve as their proctor,
providing that person is of no relation to the
student taking the exam. Examples of
proctors include managers and supervisors
at work. Scheduling can be a problem for
student and proctors to arrange a test time,
but the flexibility in proctors may help
(Creating a proctoring).
In addition to distance learning, students
with disabilities may use testing centers as
special accommodations. Cox, Herner, and
Demczyk conducted a statewide assessment
of elementary, middle, and high school
students with disabilities and found that the
addition of a proctor or scribe is correlated
with higher participation rates (2006). No
previous studies have shown how testing
accommodations relate to student outcomes
comparing state by state. However, research
has shown a connection between a proctor
being present and an increased assessment
score (Cox et al, 2006). The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 helps explain
Block Initiatives 29
classifying who has disabilities and what
methods of accommodations should be
made for such individuals (Pitiniak and
Royer, 2001). The Code of Fair Testing in
Education from 1988 educates the public on
the rights of test-takers and suggests
accommodation methods. One of the
options since 1999 includes modifying the
physical setting in which students with
disabilities take their exams or relocating
students to a new space (Pitiniak and Royer,
2001).
Apart from distance learning and students
with disabilities, a few examples of
modifying assessment in higher education
are presented. For example, a three-week
summer science program for students from
Louisiana State University, Louisiana
Technical University, and the University of
Louisiana explores methods of assessment
in a consolidated schedule (Baustian, 2008).
The instructors use pre- and post-course
“image-based analysis,” which involves
working with Microsoft Office clipart. The
students also take weekly pass/fail quizzes
as well as lab and practical exams.
Instructors keep a working knowledge of
assessment methods to use for creative
testing. They adapt the tests to the short
curriculum to seek productive results
(Baustian, 2008). Accelerated schedules
may necessitate that instructional
approaches are modified due to time
constraints (Daniel, 2000). Daniel indicates
time-intensive courses may make greater use
of experiential learning (2000).
The University of Florida Business College
explored assessments to measure learning
(Peach et al, 2007). In part to maintain
business accreditation, faculty worked to
formulate output measures for student
learning. The approach was framed to
assure faculty the changes were about
curriculum not poor teaching. The revisions
were based on five 2003 accrediting
standards, included critical thinking,
communications, ethics, project
management, and domain knowledge. The
Business College conducted a conduct to
assess its students’ critical thinking. In
2005, only 28% scored as “exemplary” in
terms of learning outcomes; whereas, in
2006, that percentage rose. An unexpected
plus resulted from the learning assessments
in that faculty who were teaching different
sections of the same course began to talk
and meet together (Peach et al, 2007).
Focus Groups Summary
The staff participants said the testing center
initiative met current students’ needs and
should be implemented next but
misunderstood the purpose of the TBR
institutions’ testing centers. However,
faculty adamantly opposed the testing center
for reasons of breakdown in control of
assessment, loss of a learning opportunity,
and creating an inconvenience for students
to schedule exams on their own time.
Other Project Questions
Primary Question 3: “Are there other
initiatives that should be considered as part
of the ‘block plan enhancement’ goal?”
In an effort to answer the project question,
“Are there other initiatives that should be
considered as part of the ‘block plan
enhancement’ goal?” Faculty and staff
focus groups responded to a question
regarding whether other initiatives should
compose the strategic plan. While these
ideas should certainly be respected and
considered, it is important to remember the
context in which they were brought to light.
After answering several questions about the
proposed initiatives, focus groups members
may have surmised the strategic plan
Block Initiatives 30
suggested that the Block was somehow
flawed and in need of some type of initiative
to repair it. In this way, respondents did not
enter into this question with a blank slate.
The predicament with asking faculty and
staff open-ended questions about what other
initiatives they think Tusculum should adopt
lies in the fact that the respondents may have
personal agendas or pet projects that may
have nothing to do with the Block. When a
collection of solutions exists for which
people are simply looking for problems, this
is called garbage can decision-making.
Staff members hoped to “keep the students’
best interest” in mind and choose an
initiative that will enhance their experience.
Another discussion concerning academic
time as 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ensued as
staff talked through how to engage students
in club and cultural activities. They decided
that student organization meetings or special
programs, such as lecture series, could take
place between morning and afternoon
meetings if the initiative to hold classes one
and a half hours in the morning and
afternoon was enacted. However, the group
remained opposed to that time schedule,
fearing an increase in attrition from
commuters and students with jobs.
The staff also proposed the idea of
strengthening the summer academic
program to encourage students to take
summer courses at Tusculum (as opposed to
a nearby community college, Walter State).
One male staff member insisted that
building set empty during the summer due to
weak enrollment. Another male staff person
asked a poignant question, “How much do
we manipulate the student or manipulate the
mold (i.e. the Block)?”
The faculty yearned for an initiative that
would produce all of the following:
flexibility, financial resources, and
academically prepared students. In order to
attain at least the third objective, they would
like to institute an academic boot camp, such
as in the summer, to help students increase
their abilities, particularly in reading and
writing, one faculty member said. A second
initiative idea coming from the faculty was
to meet for class four hours per day for four
days per week, such as 8:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. and have Wednesdays off. This would
“give students a break” to meet for team
projects or for student activities. It would
also allow faculty to hold meeting, engage in
research, and “interact in a community” of
fellow professors. They thought the current
Block plan does not accommodate research
agendas.
Sub-question 1: “What strategic initiatives
among the three remaining delineated in the
Strategic Plan would be the best one to pilot
and implement next (following the LivingLearning Communities)?”
Faculty and staff disagreed as to which
initiative should follow the 2008 piloting of
living-learning communities. Faculty in the
focus groups expressed that Tusculum
should not implement any of the three
remaining initiatives. However, if they had
to choose one, it would be 4.2, which splits
courses between morning and afternoon.
Staff respondents chose the testing center as
the next way step to improve the Block.
Sub-question 2: “How have Colorado
College and Cornell College changed their
version of the Block, if at all, in order to
manage student expectations and
produce better learning outcomes?”
As with the contextual analysis, to gather
information in response to this research
question about Colorado College and
Cornell College, the data collection methods
Block Initiatives 31
included website research, phone interviews
with a faculty member from both Colorado
and Cornell, respectively, as well as articles
and documents about Colorado. The phone
interviews were scheduled with each of the
two interviewees via email and each
conducted in one phone conversation with
each faculty member. As aforementioned,
the questions formulated prior, and
employed as a basis, for the calls are located
in Appendix A. Both faculty members
provided information freely without always
needing an articulated question for direction.
Faculty members were informed via email
as well as on the phone call that the
researcher was conducting a project on
Tusculum’s Block as a graduate student at
Vanderbilt University.
Colorado College
Early in the shortened term schedule at
Colorado College, students normally took
two courses per block (Colorado faculty,
personal communication, September 22,
2009). Now, two different faculty members
teach separate two-block-long courses, as an
interdisciplinary approach has proven
unpopular among Colorado’s faculty. One
example of parallel, or concurrent two-block
courses at Colorado is a course on the
History of China and a Chinese Culture and
Language course, but running alternate days
(instead of half morning and half afternoon
as Tusculum is considering) followed up by
trip to china (Colorado faculty). Colorado
had proposed running blocks five and six as
parallel course blocks and even offered to
compensate faculty to develop parallel
courses. New and overextended faculty
have not responded well to such measures,
however (Colorado faculty).
At Colorado, the early block plan included
half-courses, which met partially in the early
morning and completed in the late morning
(Brooks, 1969). Professors could teach two
courses per block, or two sections of the
same course. Late afternoon and early
evening sections included dance, choir.
Students could take courses, such as dance
and music, along with principle (main)
course. Faculty would teach 30 out of 33
weeks, and students would attend class a
total of 120 weeks to graduate (30 weeks per
year) (Brooks, 1969).
Today, faculty decide what time their
courses will begin and end, but the general
rule is that all classes, except the sciences,
end by 3:00 p.m. (Colorado College, 2009;
Colorado faculty, personal communication,
September 22, 2009). At least some math
courses meet partly in the morning, and then
the students are dismissed to work on an
assignment and return to finish class in the
afternoon. However, the average class
meets 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (Colorado
faculty).
Colorado also has half-block courses, which
meet for 10 days, such as between the last
block of the fall and the first block of the
spring (Colorado College). In addition,
students may take evening or Saturday
classes at Colorado, with evening classes
beginning no earlier than 5:00 (Colorado
faculty, personal communication, September
22, 2009). This gives student organizations
time to meet between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.
(Colorado faculty).
None of the other institutions that operate on
a Block facilitate a testing center of the
nature that Tusculum is considering. At
Colorado College, no central testing facility
exists either. Students take exams in the
classroom at 9:00 a.m., and their professor
give a lecture following the test and until
3:00 p.m. (Colorado faculty, personal
communication, September 22, 2009).
Faculty members never, or at least are not
Block Initiatives 32
supposed to, lecture before an exam
(Colorado faculty).
Cornell College
Today, the One Course at a Time (OCAAT)
format holds mostly true to its name. It has
at least minimally changed, though, in the
last 21 years, for example, with the
introduction of parallel courses, although
they compose less than 1% of the courses at
Cornell (Cornell faculty, personal
communication, September 11, 2009). Two
courses run over a two-block period,
wherein one could meet in the morning and
another in the afternoon. Individual faculty
members decide which courses to pair
together and present the proposal to the
faculty curriculum committee for approval.
Once the entire faculty has approved the
parallel courses, the faculty member who
proposed the set then teaches both courses
(Cornell faculty). The courses are of related
subjects; for example, students do not take
economics in the morning and English in the
afternoon. Instead, students may take two
business courses for a seven-week term at
Cornell. However, almost all of Cornell’s
courses run one per block.
Similar to parallel courses, students can take
link courses in an interdisciplinary approach
to course scheduling but in separate blocks
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009). Cornell offers link
courses for first-year sociology and geology
courses, for example. Students may take
sociology in the first block and geology in
the third, but both courses will focus on one
theme (e.g. consumption). As with the
parallel course option, few courses are
offered as links (Cornell faculty).
Cornell experimented with offering
interdisciplinary link courses also in a
parallel format, such as biology and
psychology courses that deal with the
common theme of cognition (Cornell
faculty, personal communication, September
11, 2009). Each course would contain a
different group of students (e.g. students in
biology would not also attend psychology),
but the students would “link,” or meet as a
combined class at certain points throughout
one block. In that way, linked parallel
courses differ from regular parallel in that
they would not last for seven weeks.
Cornell plans to apply this approach to its
environmental studies program in the near
future (Cornell faculty).
As with Colorado and Tusculum, each
course (other than parallel courses) at
Cornell meets for three and one half weeks,
with a four-day break between. However,
whereas Tusculum’s courses meet for three
hours in the morning or afternoon, and
Colorado’s courses meet whenever the
faculty would like during the day, whether
once or twice (Cornell faculty personal
communication, September 11, 2009).
Cornell’s professors generally teach half of
each class 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. and the other
half in the afternoons, 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
(Cornell College). Each course totals four
credits, as is common with block programs.
Cornell requires its faculty to meet at least
10 hours per week for class, but if they
adhere to the aforementioned schedule, they
meet closer to 20 hours per week (Cornell
faculty).
At Cornell College, students with special
needs may complete their exams in a lowdistraction testing environment, but these are
accommodations for students with
disabilities and not utilized by every student
taking an exam (Cornell faculty, personal
communication, September 11, 2009). For
most students at Cornell, tests take place in
the classroom during normal class hours.
Block Initiatives 33
In terms of testing, some classes at Cornell,
students take final exams on the last Friday
of each course instead of the eighteenth day
the class meets (Cornell faculty, personal
communication, September 11, 2009).
Students may deliver presentations the
following Monday and Tuesday and submit
a final paper on Wednesday, with final
grades due the following Monday (formerly,
faculty were required to submit grades on
Friday). As a result of the time constraints,
as the faculty member admits, that means
faculty do not assign 20-page final papers to
grade in little over a week (personal
communication, September 11, 2009).
Sub-question 3: “Other than the Block and
the traditional semester calendar, what
other academic calendars exist?”
group said he felt the only reason to keep the
Block was for recruitment purposes.
Current Tusculum Initiatives
During the same period as the three
initiatives discussed in this study are under
consideration, other initiatives addressing
the Block and other issues are in operation.
To further understand how each or any of
the remaining options (i.e. splitting each
course between morning and afternoon,
parallel courses, and a testing center) may fit
on Tusculum’s campus, it serves one to
know about existing programs, including the
living-learning communities (from the
Strategic Plan), the CARE Program, and
Freshmen Retention Services.
Living-Learning Communities
The focus groups discussed other variations
of calendars with which they are familiar.
Generally, the had heard of a quarter system,
a calendar in which a 12-week term is
followed by one month, Janmester and
Maymester terms, the semester, and the
Block. Almost unanimously, both the
faculty and staff participants indicated they
prefer the Block and want to keep the
current Tusculum calendar. The staff wanted
the present academic calendar to be
strengthened but felt it fit nicely with most
subject areas.
Staff and faculty believed it would be more
cost-effective to keep the Block than to
change to a new calendar. Faculty said if
Tusculum abandoned the Block, it could not
complete with small, local institutions. As
one faculty member said, “we did it to
distinguish ourselves…would lose our
identity (if the academic calendar changed).”
Faculty in one focus group thought the
Block would work better if Tusculum
enrolled a higher-caliber of students, in
terms of GPA. One faculty member in that
Tusculum piloted a living-learning
community in 2008 and fully implemented
this Block initiative in 2009 (Strategic Plan
2009-2014). The purpose of this program
was to organize freshmen into cohorts for
residential living as well as the classroom
experience. Tusculum's goal lied in
improving students’ persistence and
retention and building co-curricular bonds
between the classroom and residence life.
Learning communities involve collaborative
learning (Snowden, 2004). Living-learning
communities mean that students live in the
same residence hall or on the same floor and
take courses together. Participation in a
social community through cultural practices
and shared activities stimulates learning
(Paavola, Lipponen, and Hakkarainen,
(2004). Learning takes place in networks of
activities, practices, and actions in a
community. Social learning is communal
and contextual, such as in a dormitory.
Knowledge creation is a social process
Block Initiatives 34
involving innovation between people and
communities (Paavola, et al, 2004).
One study concerning learning communities
considered students who registered for a
learning community, meaning they lived in
the same two residence halls, read a
common text, and engaged in collaborative
relationships in shared courses (Snowden,
2004). The students met in groups in their
dormitories as well. This study specifically
looked at first-year students under the age of
19 in a sociology course and how the
learning community affected, or did not
affect, their views of diversity (Snowden,
2004). The study found that students’ views
of diversity changed from homogenous to
heterogeneous. The students felt
comfortable with one another, and the
learning communities fostered growth.
However, some students did not like taking
courses back to back (e.g. English and
sociology) (Snowden, 2004).
Cy-Fair College, students are arranged into
learning communities that take two or more
classes together, and these courses revolve
around similar themes but in different
subjects (Ashburn, 2006). A one-size-fitsall model should not be applied to livinglearning communities (Snowden, 2004).
Another commuter-based university
organized freshmen into learning
communities, or small groups (Angrist,
Lang, and Oreopoulos, 2005). The students
took the same classes their first year of
college and were more likely to pass English
courses than the control group, which was
not in learning communities. These groups
did not impact retention from freshman to
sophomore years, however (Angrist, et al,
2005).
An anthropological study involved two
years of participant-observation at Rutgers
in New Jersey, explored the out-of-
classroom learning that takes place in
informal ways in residence halls (Moffatt,
1991). In the early 20th century, directors of
residence life and student activities joined
the staff of higher education institutions,
thereby providing programming and
learning opportunities during the remainder
of the day after students finish classes
(Moffatt, 1991). This out-of-class learning
becomes more important than classroom
learning for some students (Moffatt, 1991).
While not many accessible studies on livinglearning communities exist, a variety of
institutions, including Tusculum, feature
them on real-life campuses today. Florida
State University (FSU) offers seven livinglearning communities, organized around
academic interests such as nursing and
music, whose residents experience a higher
graduation rate than non-residents (Florida
State University). Their Bryan Hall
community, in operation since 1997, is
available only to freshmen, who must
submit two essays on “curiosity and the
desire to learn” for admission consideration.
All of FSU’s living-learning communities
emphasize academics, promote access to
faculty, and involve mostly first-year
students who live in the same hall (Florida
State University).
Eastern Kentucky University also provides
living-learning communities focused on
academic interests as well as other themes.
ConneXtions First-Year Residence Halls
feature activities for co-ed, freshmen
residents along with transitional
programming (Eastern Kentucky
University). The Community Outreach
Opportunities League (COOL) exists within
ConneXtions and focuses on service both on
campus and in the community.
ConneXtions residents live together in two
halls, Commonwealth and Palmer (Eastern
Kentucky University).
Block Initiatives 35
The University of North Carolina- Chapel
Hill “connects classroom learning with
residence life” through living-learning
communities organized by shared academic
goals (The University of North Carolina).
Community options include Religion as
Explorative Learning Integrated in Our
Community (RELIC), Language Houses,
Connected Learning Program, and others.
The Connected Learning Program students
engage in group learning that connects
academic disciplines in Cobb Hall. The
participants plan activities and connect with
other campus organizations and classes.
Students submit applications and
descriptions of the projects in which they are
involved as part of the process of admission
to the community (The University of North
Carolina).
The University of Denver also connects
academics with residence life with
communities participating in seminar classes
and living on the same floors (University of
Denver). Denver features five livinglearning communities including Creativity
and Entrepreneurship. The 22 students in
this group enroll in three two-hour courses
together, one in the fall, winter, and spring.
The fall course theme is foundations in
entrepreneurship, the winter theme concerns
operating and growing a business, and the
spring theme involves creativity (University
of Denver).
Living-learning communities at the
University of Tennessee Knoxville stem
from a partnership between University
Housing and the Student Success Center
(The University of Tennessee). Groups for
freshmen include Pathways Community,
Honors Community, Engage Community
(for engineering majors), Design
Community, and Agricultural Sciences and
Natural Resources Community. In
Pathways, freshmen take two courses
together, while students in Engage and
Design enroll in core freshmen courses.
Agricultural Sciences students take
Biodiversity together and either Introduction
to Animal Science or Orientation to Studies
in Agriculture and Natural Resources
together, depending on major (The
University of Tennessee).
Freshman Retention Services
According to a Tusculum staff member who
works with this program, three key
ingredients comprise retention: academics,
social, and administrative (Tusculum staff,
personal communication, January 5, 2010).
He indicates that Freshmen Retention
Services’ goal is to help students persist by
increasing their success in the classroom, in
establishing friendships or social networks,
and in navigating the administrative process.
His focus rests in the third area, assisting
students navigate the administrative process,
as a liaison between the students and the
institution (Tusculum staff, personal
communication, January 5, 2010). This
source suggests Tusculum offers a wide
variety of resources which promote student
success, but many students either do not
know these resources exist or do not know
how to access them. He monitors student
progress and connects students to available
resources, from suggesting academic tutors,
financial aid, and work-study to teaching
students how to submit a work request to
information systems. Since he primarily
works with freshmen, those students learn
enough in their first year to guide them
through the remainder of their time at
Tusculum (personal communication,
January 5, 2010).
From his perspective, the block schedule can
serve as an early alert system for academic
Block Initiatives 36
issues, because students receive grades
every 18 days. “If a student fails their first
class we can confront the student, identify
the problem and make adjustments, with the
hopes of seeing better results the remainder
of the semester” (Tusculum staff, personal
communication, January 5, 2010). This is
an advantage to a semester schedule, since
students may go an entire semester before
academic problems become obvious.
However, the Block may increase students’
struggling in certain subjects, such as math.
Freshmen Retention Services therefore
stresses that students take advantage of
tutors from the first day they begin their
math course.
CARE program
According to a Tusculum staff member, who
is involved with the program, CARE began
two years ago to address and increase
retention. Faculty and staff volunteer their
time to meet with students, whom CARE
leaders select at the start of each academic
year. Selection is based on the students
lacking “apparent bonding ties to any other
group on campus” (Tusculum staff, personal
communication, December 15, 2009).
CARE leaders operate a budget with which
they may organize off-campus activities for
the students. These outings include rafting,
gourmet cooking lessons, horseback riding,
and other interesting opportunities that the
CARE members otherwise would not have.
Leaders submit required expense reports and
receipts to keep track of expenditures
(Tusculum staff).
Conclusions
Engaging Change
The staff and faculty could not reach a
uniformed conclusion as to which initiative
should be next implemented, with the staff
choosing a testing center, and faculty
conditionally in favor of classes split
between morning and afternoon. However,
both faculty and staff focus groups, in
general liked the current Block plan.
Therefore, needing a change to the Block
itself was not an obvious assumption by the
focus groups. They do not see a
metaphorical fire or possess any overt sense
of urgency to change the Block.
As expressed above, the ideas that faculty
and staff offered as other initiatives may be
on one hand unrelated to the Block and on
the other may have gone unmentioned
unless presented with the concept that
something about the Block just is not right.
The administration will need to invest time
and effort into convincing faculty and staff
that the Block needs any enhancement, no
matter what form such enhancing may take.
This is particularly the case, because
although the living-learning communities
initiative went into effect, it did not strike
directly at the Block. Even though it was
considered one of the changes for Block
enhancement, it did not overly disrupt the
schedule or calendar.
In addition, while focus groups’ ideas for
other initiatives should be considered toward
answering the research question regarding
other initiatives that perhaps should be on
the planning committee’s list. They should
also be carefully weighed as perhaps
products of garbage can decision-making
(Cohen and March, 1972). Metaphorical
garbage cans hold collections of choices in
search of problems (M. McClendon, lecture,
Jul. 28, 2007). It is possible that members
of the focus groups possessed ideas for
which they were looking for a stage on
which to present them, and such ideas may
not truly improve the Block. With garbage
cans, staff and faculty move from one choice
opportunity to another (e.g. Block
Block Initiatives 37
enhancement today, something quite
different tomorrow) desiring to apply their
solution (M. McClendon, lecture, Jul. 28,
2007).
While listening to people’s concerns and
considering their plans shows accessibility,
garbage can solutions should not necessarily
be adopted, and those who propose them are
not always leaders for productive change
(Cohen and March, 1972). However,
responses from the focus group member
regarding their ideas for enhancing the
Block do help to answer the research
question regarding other, unlisted initiatives.
In addition, Tusculum’s administration
should examine the three initiatives on the
strategic planning committee’s list to
uncover whether even these ideas resulted
from garbage can decision-making.
Whichever initiative or initiatives Tusculum
decides to enforce, such change will require
further procedural planning for formal
change including those in upper- and lowerhierarchical positions at the college
(Mintzberg and Westley, 1992). The
strategic planning committee has already
begun this process. Administration will
need faculty and staff representatives to
support the planned change and rally their
peers to join the cause. Since the focus
groups suggest faculty and staff at-large
favor maintaining the Block, they may be
more supportive about an initiative if they
believe it will carry out the original
intentions for the Block, thereby improving
it as opposed to fixing or abandoning it
(Mintzberg and Westley, 1992). Indeed, if
faculty and staff misunderstand the change
as suggesting the Block is broken, so too
may be morale.
Furthermore, the focus groups demonstrated
some sense that every few years proposed
changes to the Block arise, so this time may
be nothing new. It will be important that
faculty and staff who have heard of, or seen,
changes to the Block in the past (especially
unsuccessful changes) be reassured that this
time, the initiatives are both real and for
enhancement instead of merely rumored
corrections. Change is cyclical, and colleges
go through episodes of change to adjust and
adapt (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992).
Higher education is a loosely coupled
system, which means that changes in one
department may not affect other areas,
because divisions within the college can
interact for some ends but remain separate
for others (Weick). If the initiative to split
classes between morning and afternoon or
the one to hold parallel courses for seven
weeks only apply to a selection of courses
and professors, these initiatives could be
contained within a limited number of
departments. However, the strategic
planning committee indicates all courses
may move to the morning and afternoon
split if that initiative is implemented
(Strategic Plan).
Regarding the testing center, though, the
intention is to convert all course assessments
to the centralized lab after a small-scale pilot
program. Therefore, if Tusculum enforces
any of the three initiatives, except if the
parallel courses are restricted to a select few,
the change would be widespread and affect
all areas of the college. This applies not
only to academic, but also as mentioned
earlier, a male staff person expressed
concern that Admissions would need new
recruiting materials as a result of enhancing
the Block.
By Initiative
Initiative 4.1: Provide the
opportunity for students to take two
Block Initiatives 38
compatible courses, simultaneously, over a
seven-week (two blocks) period.
The first initiative would alter the Block in
two critical ways. First, students who took
parallel courses would no longer take one
course at a time but rather two. Second, this
initiative requires that at least some courses
last longer than one 18-day Block. Offering
seven-week courses changes the dynamics
of Tusculum’s identity. No longer is it one
course at a time for 18 days. Now, some
courses, the number of which is unspecified
and unknown, would run simultaneously for
two Blocks.
While the general sense from the staff was
that while this initiative would serve as an
improvement by providing more time for a
single course, moving away from the Block
was not worth that increase in class time. In
terms of the two courses composing a full
day of class, morning and afternoon, faculty
and staff agreed that although a hindrance to
athletes and working students, academic
time is supposed to run from 8:30 a.m. to
3:30 p.m. Even still, neither group was
ultimately in favor of all courses moving to
a two-block schedule, particularly for the
sake of students who work or play sports.
Faculty members thought this initiative
could work if presented as a voluntary
option for faculty and in certain subjects,
such as business or “conceptually dense”
courses, with department buy-in. However,
they expressed that operating classes on this
plan would become a “scheduling
nightmare” and course continuity at
Tusculum. The faculty in general disagreed
with this initiative, and one commented that
Tusculum might as well move to a semester
schedule or, as also expressed, to teaching
four courses at a time if they would be
required to teach two courses per seven
weeks.
Despite Tusculum’s faculty and staff
resistance to parallel courses, Cornell
College offers some pairs of courses over
two block periods (Cornell faculty, personal
communication, Sept. 11, 2009). However,
perhaps in support of the focus groups’
apprehension, only about 1% of Cornell’s
courses function in this way. The University
of Montana Western also offers multi-block
courses, but not just for two blocks.
Students there may take semester-long
courses (University of Montana- Western).
While Tusculum’s strategic planning
committee is considering transforming all
courses into parallel, seven-week versions,
none of their peer institutions have so
dramatically departed from the 18-day onecourse calendar. In that there exists a level
of distinction and identity, but operating
multiple calendars could become confusing
for staff to both coordinate and explain to
prospective students, as expressed by the
focus groups.
Certainly, collaboration among faculty to
create and teach interdisciplinary courses
suits the trend and would promote
partnership across disciplinary lines, that is,
if parallel courses are matched with care and
precision (Braxton and Del Favero, 2000).
Carefully paired courses that promote
transfer of knowledge from one academic
subject to the other also benefits students
(Bess, 2000). If staff and, particularly,
faculty at Tusculum oppose the initiative to
run parallel courses, then any positive
effects that could result from
interdisciplinary partnerships are greatly
hindered.
The parallel courses do not necessarily need
to be interdisciplinary. Instead, students
could take two separate courses that do not
intertwine at all throughout the seven-week
period or take two courses within the same
Block Initiatives 39
department, such as World History I and
United States History I. In addition, the
administration may deem only courses in
certain subject matters, such as computer
science, as suggested by one staff person, or
math, as supported by the literature, as
seven-week options. However, other
departments may be alienated as somehow
less “conceptually dense” or think this
means their subject matter is less difficult
since students can learn it in 18 days as
opposed to seven weeks. As mentioned
earlier, Tusculum’s administration would
need staff and faculty on-board for any
initiatives it attempts to implement,
including this one.
Continuing the discussion of computer
science, math, and even foreign language as
parallel courses, extending some subjects for
seven weeks could increase students’
learning. Students may better learn some
subjects over a longer term than a shorter
one. Recall that Gallo and Odu investigated
students at Florida community colleges and
found that although students preferred
shorter schedules, such a course format was
not best for learning math (2009). Also
concerning math, course length has a
relationship with anxiety, with the shorter
term length associated with increased
anxiety (Bell, 2001).
However, no one has detected testing
differences for students taking short or
longer-length courses in the subjects of
geometry, sociology, criminology, biology,
and geology (Aguilar, 2004). On the other
hand, students studying education, language,
and literature in an intensive term have
tested better than those on longer calendars
(Daniel, 2000). Perhaps a greater number of
studies on broader samples needs to be
conducted to confirm, but the literature
suggests the affect of course calendar length
on demonstrated student learning may vary
by academic discipline. “Little information
(is) available on how the calendar change
affects students or student outcomes,”
Carley laments. “Very little empirical
research exists showing whether a change to
a compressed calendar benefits students”
(2002).
Initiative 4.2: Change current class
scheduling to minimize challenge of
maintaining academic engagement for
three hours and to increase opportunities for
student and faculty outside-of-class
interaction.
The second strategic initiative to enhance
the Block would require some, and perhaps
all, courses to change from a three-hour
period (as most classes currently run) to a
morning section of an hour and a half
followed by an afternoon section of an hour
and a half. This alters the normal daily
schedule for both faculty and students
accustomed to meeting only in the morning
or solely in the afternoon for one course.
For science courses that already typically
last all day in order to cover lecture and lab,
this schedule change is especially limiting.
Professors in the sciences would need to cut
back on the amount of time spent in the
classroom.
Despite worry for the sciences, faculty
thought this was the only proposed initiative
of the three that they could accept, but only
if it was implemented on a voluntary basis
for faculty. In addition, faculty said the
administration would garner departmental
buy-in. However, if this schedule became
mandatory of all professors, faculty would
revolt. Also, they indicated they would need
to spend a lot of time and effort reworking
their courses to divide lesson plans into
morning and afternoon, and some concern
arose regarding the break in continuity such
a schedule would cause. For example,
Block Initiatives 40
students and faculty know they have either a
three-hour morning or three-hour afternoon
class at present and do not interrupt midway
through the session for a break.
Faculty did not seem convinced that holding
class part in the morning and part in the
afternoon would improve student and
faculty interactions, as the planning
committee hoped (Strategic Plan 20092014). The faculty’s lack of engagement
and tendency to leave campus when class is
not in session would not necessarily change
as a result of this initiative, they said.
Although, this time change would require
faculty to remain on campus from
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. to
teach, which the current schedule does not,
except in the case of sciences. After all,
both faculty and staff agreed that this time
period is dedicated to academic matters,
whether classes meet the entire time or not.
They could no longer teach until noon and
then spend the remainder of the day at
home.
Similarly, staff in the focus group wondered
if students would come back to class after
their lunch break. They expressed concern
that splitting classes between the morning
and the afternoon would create problems for
student athletes as well as students who go
to work after their morning class concludes.
One suggested, “4.2 might merit more
study” and suggested investigating students’
schedules, specifically outside-of-class
activities. Likewise, faculty members saw
this initiative as a disadvantage to commuter
students. One faculty member thought
students might choose to attend an
institution such as Eastern Tennessee State
University or Walter State Community
College, nearby instead of Tusculum, in
order to schedule their classes back-to-back
and leave campus for the rest of the day,
such as to work.
In addition, for both the parallel course
proposal and this change to the Block, staff
members indicated their message to students
would need to change. This may be
troubling, since faculty recognized the Block
as Admissions’ “main sell” and the reason
students come to Tusculum in the first place.
This includes recruiting materials for
athletes and non-athletes in addition to
advising and registration. Particularly with
the seven-week courses, no longer would
Tusculum be able to honestly market a
purely 18-day schedule with one course at a
time as its message. Nor could staff
promote the option of taking either a
morning or afternoon class with the
remainder of the day free for athletic
training, working, or studying.
Cornell College operates on a schedule such
as that which Tusculum’s strategic planning
committee has proposed. Cornell’s
professors possess the opportunity to meet at
whatever time they would like morning and
afternoon, but the typical schedule for each
course is 9:00-11:00 a.m. and 1:00-3:00 p.m.
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009; Cornell College, 2009).
This amounts to four hours per day instead
of three at Tusculum. At Colorado College,
professors may also decide what time their
courses will begin and end, so classes could
meet in the morning or afternoon and for
more than three hours (Colorado College,
2009). Despite the option of flexibility for
faculty, most classes meet 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. (Colorado faculty, personal
communication, September 22, 2009). At
both institutions, a classroom is reserved
specifically for each course during both
morning and afternoon (Cornell faculty,
personal communication, September 11,
2009; Colorado faculty, personal
communication, September 22, 2009).
Block Initiatives 41
From the comments made by Tusculum
faculty in the focus groups, possessing the
option to meet in the morning or afternoon
and at whatever time they desire would
probably be well received. However, as the
faculty shared, the reason Tusculum offers
both morning and afternoon courses
separately stems from an increase in
enrollment, and the space constraints that
produces, since the beginning of the Block.
Initiative 4.4: Reduce the
pedagogical limitations of the Block by
capturing as much
instructional time as
possible in each class session by removing
assessment and testing
from class
sessions.
The final section of Tusculum’s plan to
improve the Block is perhaps the most
divisive of all the proposed changes.
Certainly, it is the most expensive, not
including the living-learning communities
initiative that began in 2008. However, the
living-learning communities did not greatly
impact the Block, except that cohorts take
their classes together. Regarding the testing
center proposal, this would in effect remove
all assessment from the classroom and place
it in a centralized computer lab. This would
also separate the faculty member teaching
the course from those times when their
students complete exams. Instead, a staff
person would facilitate the testing center.
Faculty opposed the idea of a testing center,
saying it would cause “mass rebellion” if
enforced. One faculty member said he
would obey the administration if he was
required to give his exams this way but
would not be a “happy citizen.” Faculty did
not think a testing center would meet
Tusculum’s current students’ needs, citing it
would “complicate everything, brings other
parties (staff) into it.” Among their
concerns included a loss of control during
assessment, as professors want to be present
when their students take their quizzes and
exams to answer questions and provide
clarification. Faculty also took issue with
the anticipated difficulty of scheduling their
tests against all other professors’ tests for
the same space, lack of secure computer lab,
and loss of the learning experience
assessment affords.
Basically, at the other end of the faculty’s
opposition was the staff’s hopefulness. Staff
members willingly considered the testing
center and considered it the most preferable
initiative on the list. All staff (except for the
one who participated in the faculty group)
agreed that implementing a testing center
would be excellent. They believed that
removing assessment from the classroom to
allow for more class time would meet
Tusculum’s current students’ needs more
than any other change proposed by the
planning committee. However, staff did
express concern about the cost of opening a
testing center as well as echoed the faculty’s
note about a lack of secure computer lab
resources on campus.
Tusculum’s fellow Block colleges and
universities do not employ a centralized
testing facility for all course exams. In the
larger scheme, testing centers exist for
students in distance-learning courses, such
as the TBR institutions and the proctoring
services in Florida, standardized
assessments, and testing accommodations
for students with disabilities. However, no
evidence has presented itself to prove a
central testing center for all course
assessments currently exists on a college
campus. Still, one staff member called the
testing center “the easiest one to do” out of
the three initiatives.
Block Initiatives 42
Focus Groups’ Bottom Line Sentiments Per
Initiative
Staff
Faculty
Overall
Split
Less
OpenCautiously
Courses for
voluntary Open
Parallel
Less
OpenCautiously
Courses for
voluntary Open
Testing
For
Against
Divided
Center
Note: The above table depicts the sentiments
expressed by the focus groups according to
the trend in their responses regarding the
initiatives.
Recommendations
Next to pilot: Initiative 4.2 on a voluntary
basis
Based on the research, Tusculum College
should move forward with Initiative 4.2,
which changes the class schedule to split the
required three hours of class per day
between morning and afternoon. Certain
alterations to the original plan by the
committee should be made, though. First,
this schedule change should be voluntary for
faculty. The administration should present
the initiative in a way that reiterates what
staff and faculty have demonstrated they
already know, academic time lasts from 8:30
a.m. until 3:30 p.m. for traditional students.
Therefore, within the confines of that time
period, professors may select to hold class
for three hours in the morning, three hours
in the afternoon, or divide their time
between morning and afternoon.
The literature as well as interviews with
faculty at Colorado College and Cornell
College support the implementation of split
courses. First, different colleges offer
courses on various days and at a wide range
of times, including nights and weekends, as
well as for a variety of meeting lengths, so
there is not one correct period to hold class
(Gallo and Odu, 2009.) Second, cognitive
learning theory suggests that students retain
material through practice over time (Gallo
and Odu, 2009). Shorter sessions with time
between enhance long-term memory and
retrieval (Daniel, 2000). Therefore, shorter
class meetings twice each day with a break
for lunch between may improve students’
ability to retain material.
Cornell’s professors possess the opportunity
to meet at whatever time they would like
morning and afternoon, but the typical
schedule for each course is two hours in the
morning and two in the afternoon (Cornell
faculty, personal communication, September
11, 2009; Cornell College, 2009). At
Colorado, professors also decide what time
their courses will begin and end, so they
may meet morning and afternoon if desired
(Colorado faculty, personal communication,
September 22, 2009).
The faculty should make their course hours
known before the registration period, so that
students who work or play sports may take
courses to accommodate their schedules.
For example, if three sections of
Composition I are offered during a semester
frame and each was taught by a different
professor, then each section could be at a
different time (i.e. morning, afternoon, a
combination). Retention staff should closely
monitor athletes’ and employed students’
enrollment during the first year of split
courses. However, this initiative should
minimally affect Admissions’ recruiting
print materials, as students will still only
take one course at a time.
The faculty in the focus groups expressed
that they would accept the introduction of
one-and-a-half hour class meetings twice per
day as a feasible initiative if the
administration introduced it as optional. As
Block Initiatives 43
one faculty member worded it, a mandatory
enforcing of this schedule change would be
problematic. If professors opted in to try
teaching their courses in this format, they
would meet with their class partly in the
morning and complete the class day after
lunch, in the afternoon.
Faculty would gain more freedom and
flexibility, which they seemed to want, with
this initiative. They could hold class
sessions for one three-hour block or two
one-and-a-half-hour blocks. Professors in
the sciences who, according to the focus
groups, already meet in both morning and
afternoon would not need to change their
meeting habits. However, no longer would
science classes be the only ones holding
class throughout the day. Academic time
would more truly last from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30
p.m., which seemed to be what faculty and
staff already believed.
The voluntary basis not only protects busy
students, it saves the science courses, which
require more than three hours of classroom
time per day. This also allows professors
who see this initiative as either a movement
away from the Block or an infringement on
faculty freedom to decide for themselves if
they will adjust their syllabi and course
preparations for a split course. In addition,
professors teaching adjunct at another
institution may still preserve both
appointments by maintaining the three-hour
class schedule at Tusculum. Providing the
choice and flexibility for faculty should
increase their satisfaction with the college
instead of feeling that the administration is
forcing a new teaching schedule on them.
Perhaps the easiest way to approach
providing courses in this format would be
for specifically new faculty hired during the
pilot year to develop syllabi and teach split
courses.
Regarding the timeline given in the Strategic
Plan, some adjustments should be made in
order to pilot one split course per block in
fall 2010, with students self-selecting into
these courses. Administration should hold a
meeting with department chairs in May to
discuss the initiative. Following that
session, all Tusculum faculty should meet
with the Provost and Associate Provost for
Academic Affairs to learn more about this
new schedule option that will be available to
them in spring 2011. The reason Tusculum
should wait until spring to pilot split courses
is because students may have already
registered for their fall courses not knowing,
of course, that they would become split
courses. Due to work and athletics,
students should know that a course would
meet in both morning and afternoon before
the registration period.
Faculty who are interested should work on a
revised syllabus as well as a proposal of how
they will structure the in-class learning as
well as assignments on the new schedule
and how it would improve their course due
by late August. Chairs of the departments in
which courses have been proposed should
meet with the Associate Provost for
Academic Affairs to approve the faculty
member’s course by October. The college
could permanently institute split courses by
spring 2012 if desired.
After Initiative 4.2: Introduce Optional 4.1
After Tusculum has piloted split courses on
a voluntary basis for faculty, if the
administration perceives a need to further
enhance the Block, the next step would be
the introduction of parallel courses. Neither
faculty nor staff chose this initiative as their
favorite, but both were open to it for certain
courses. Faculty insisted the college only
introduce this measure as optional.
Block Initiatives 44
In addition to the focus groups, the literature
along with the Colorado College and Cornell
College interviews support piloting parallel
courses after split courses. For one, the
literature suggests interdisciplinary courses
are popular at institutions from community
colleges to private universities (Altieri and
Cygnar, 1997; Paris, 2007). Furthermore,
students may learn some subjects better, or
just as well, in a longer term than a shorter
one, according to the literature (Scott, 2009;
Aguilar, 2004). Also, longer terms appear to
produce less stress for students (Beachler,
2003).
In terms of Colorado and Cornell, both
colleges offer multi-block courses for
students, but as only as subset of their many
others offered on the pure Block (Cornell
faculty, personal communication, September
11, 2009; Colorado faculty, personal
communication, September 22, 2009). At
Colorado, only a small number of parallel
courses exist, because they are not popular
with faculty due to the time required to plan
meaningful interdisciplinary courses
Colorado faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009).
In order to isolate the first initiative, split
courses, to notice its effects (or as much as
cause and effect can be assigned here) the
timeline for initiative 4.2 must change.
Currently, faculty are scheduled to adjust
their course syllabi for parallel in the
summer of 2010 with a tentative start term
of fall 2011 (Strategic Plan 2009-2014).
However, starting parallel and split courses
in the same semester will complicate the
ability to discern which first change to the
Block may be improving (or hindering) it.
Tusculum piloted living-learning
communities in fall 2008 before
implementing them in fall 2009. The
college would pilot split courses in spring
2011 and potentially permanently offer them
beginning spring 2012. That results in a
break of about two and a half years (fall
2008 to spring 2011) between pilot phases.
Therefore, Tusculum should not pilot
parallel courses until spring 2013. This gives
administration and faculty two years to
monitor and evaluate split courses and could
fully implement parallel courses in fall 2014
to adhere to the overall timeline of the
strategic plan.
Abandon initiative 4.4.
This study suggests Tusculum should not
pilot nor implement a testing center where
all students would complete their course
exams. While the staff almost unanimously,
and with fervor, supported this enhancement
method, the faculty were equally opposed to
it. Since faculty currently administer all
types of courses testing in their classroom,
they may exercise more ownership over the
future of examination at Tusculum. The
staff was not as against any initiative as
strongly as the faculty participants were with
this in particular.
In addition to the faculty focus groups, the
literature as well as Colorado College and
Cornell College support the
recommendation to abandon the testing
center initiative. No real-life example of a
testing center to the scope that Tusculum has
proposed readily exists in the literature.
While institutions provide testing
accommodations for students with
disabilities and proctored exams for online
courses, they do not encompass all tests for
on-campus courses (Pitiniak and Royer,
2001; Young, 2001). However, Speck
discusses the theory behind such a testing
center, for example, as a division of labor to
allow faculty more time for teaching and
research while trained professionals
administer and grade exams (2000). Neither
Block Initiatives 45
Colorado nor Cornell isolate assessment in a
singular facility outside of the classroom
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009; Colorado faculty,
personal communication, September 22,
2009).
The stated goal of Tusculum’s testing center
involves restoring class time for lecture and
new content instead of using up that
instructional time for exams (Strategic Plan
2009-2014). However, the faculty would
rather use the in-class time necessary to
administer quizzes and tests. Parallel
courses solve this perceived problem of time
in that courses last for seven weeks, and if
they remain three hours per day (per course)
then the contact hours double. Parallel
courses therefore render the testing center
completely unnecessary. Split courses also
adjust students’ testing schedules in that
instead of taking a three-hour exam; they
may participate in a review session in the
morning and take their test in the afternoon
or take their exam in the morning and come
back for a class period with new content in
the afternoon.
Testing centers, to the extent that Tusculum
has proposed, do not exist at other blockplan institutions. Indeed, this investigation
was hard-pressed to find a current model of
a testing center in the sense that the strategic
committee has outlined. This is not an area
in which Tusculum needs to act as the
pioneer. Meanwhile, the Block does require
professors to exercise creativity, as seen in
case examples, and discernment, as
expressed by the faculty member at Cornell.
He said faculty grade on the weekends and
utilize a rubric. The Block forces professors
to consider why and how they are grading
(Cornell faculty, personal communication,
September 11, 2009).
If parallel courses or split coursed, or a
combination of such, do not sufficiently
qualm concerns about classroom time used
for exams, Tusculum should investigate
alternatives to the testing center. However,
the other course formats should
satisfactorily address the situation. Unless
the college plans to offer online degrees, in
which case a smaller-scale testing office for
proctored exams would make sense, it
should not implement the testing center
initiative.
Threats and limitations
While this study provides a foundation of
literature and research by which Tusculum
may be better informed in its decisionmaking concerning the Block initiatives,
limitations did exist. Qualitative studies
may face threats, because of the uniqueness
of naturally occurring events and the
subjective evaluation by the researcher
(Quality Control). Such threats to consider
include reliability, or consistency over time;
that the same results will occur over and
over, time and again; and validity, which
concerns the issues of observation and
ability to generalize (Quality Control).
Concerning internal reliability, if a different
researcher repeated this study at Tusculum
using the same focus group interview
protocol, that researcher should report
similar findings and reach approximately the
same conclusions as this study. However,
perhaps subjectivity exists in the preparation
of the questions, in the interpretation of the
focus group participants’ responses, and
even in the understanding of the apparent
trends, thus reducing the internal reliability.
Regarding external validity, although the
literature and best practices research is
applicable to other block-plan colleges and
universities, the conclusions and
Block Initiatives 46
recommendations are not easily transferable
to those institutions besides Tusculum. If
one of the peer colleges such as Colorado or
Cornell decided to follow the
recommendations herein, leadership at those
campuses should first conduct their own
focus groups of faculty and staff. Certainly,
due to the specialized academic calendar on
which Tusculum operates, this study cannot
be readily applied to non-block institutions
of higher education.
For internal validity, threats may include
possible observer affects in the observations,
such as if the faculty and staff participants
said what they thought the researcher (or
administration) wanted to hear (Quality
Control). Two female faculty members
stated in the focus group meeting that they
served on the committee that created the
Block enhancement initiatives under
discussion. This was not ideal for the
method of focus groups, because these
individuals may have influenced others in
their group in one way or another. They
verbalized statements regarding what the
committee’s intent was behind the initiatives
and at least twice during the session took a
rather defensive tone, as they held a greater
vested interest in their success. This also
ties in with external validity in terms of
effective prior treatment, as members of the
committee possessed a fuller background
knowledge and first-hand experience with
the initiatives.
An issue also exists in selection, as the staff
and faculty self-selected into the study by
responding to an email, sent by the site
coordinator’s office, asking for focus group
volunteers. While all staff and faculty with
a Tusculum email address had an equal
opportunity to participate by receiving this
email, staff and faculty were not randomly
selected for this study. In addition, staff and
faculty chose which of two focus group
sessions (two for staff, and two for faculty,
respectively) they could participate in;
therefore, random assignment is also
lacking.
Selection bias connects with the response
rate for the focus groups, particularly noting
the failure of the second staff group’s
members to attend the session, an internal
threat known as mortality. Fortunately, one
of those staff members was recovered in the
second faculty group. However, this posed
another problem for the inclusively of the
group, as the second faculty group was
therefore mixed with faculty and staff.
There was a clear distinction during the
focus group that the female staff person was
not faculty, evidenced by the nonverbal
communication of a female faculty member
sitting next to her. This was also shown in
the staff member’s lack of participation as
well as a blatant recall of a statement she
made that elicited pushback from the
aforementioned faculty person.
Another challenge to internal validity lied in
testing. Two of the focus groups met in the
morning, one faculty and one staff, and the
remaining two met in the afternoon
(although the staff meeting did not make due
to poor attendance). Therefore, members of
the morning groups could have spoken to
their colleagues scheduled for the afternoon
sessions about the questions as well as
shown them the handout, Tusculum College
Strategic Plan 2009-2014, provided by the
site coordinator. Such communication after
the focus group meeting, while discouraged
through the consent form, would have given
the afternoon participants a foundation of
prior knowledge that the morning groups did
not possess.
History also acted as a threat. At the time of
this project, one of the original initiatives to
enhance the Block had already been in place
Block Initiatives 47
for a year (the living-learning communities),
and therefore did not undergo the same
investigation or consideration as the others.
Had focus groups responded to questions
about this initiative, the recommendations
reached through this study may have
changed. In addition, it remains unknown
whether such information would have
affected Tusculum’s decision to introduce
and later decide to continue living-learning
communities.
Resources of time and money acted as
limitations to the study. Time acted as a
limitation, as the study was contained to a
period of 11 months from start to finish,
including about a three-month window for
data collection. Perhaps other research
methods would have been employed or more
faculty and staff groups interviewed if the
project lasted a longer time period with
greater human resources. In addition to
time, the resource of money also posed a
limitation, as offering a gift certificate or
other form of compensation to the focus
groups may have procured more
participants. Lack of funds also prevented
paying someone to fully transcribe the focus
group recordings. However, meticulously
thorough notes along with closely listening
to the voice recordings served to reduce this
limitation.
Closing
Tusculum College operates on a rare
academic calendar with an unusual course
schedule: one class at a time for 18 days.
As the strategic planning committee seeks to
enhance that format for the benefit of all, it
should consider the message of the focus
groups, which is not to change it too much.
For the Block serves to help Tusculum stand
out and in the past 18 years has created an
identity for the college that sets it apart from
its local competitors. Staff and faculty
experience a divide in terms of which
initiative to implement next, perhaps
because they are unsure of all of them. Such
a change will require their support, though,
and the administration will need to work to
gain it.
While the split courses came out as the
faculty’s favorite and parallel courses as one
neither group completely despised, both of
these initiatives bear a precedent in other
Block institutions. With no pure example of
the testing center by way of modeling,
coupled with the faculty’s disdain,
Tusculum would do well to avoid
implementing this change. Split courses
serves as the first place to start as it was the
faculty’s preference of the three initiatives,
as an optional endeavor. It should provide
willing faculty with flexibility and keep both
students and faculty on campus for longer
than three hours at a time. Next, parallel
courses will solve some of the time issue
that understandably comes with 18-day
courses, as faculty volunteers teach sevenweek courses that compliment another for
which their students register. In the end,
Tusculum will still have the Block, only
modified, richer, and open for future
enhancements.
Block Initiatives 48
Appendix A
Questions for Cornell College Faculty,
September 11, 2009
Appendices
1. What led to the adoption of OCAAT
in 1978?
2. How, if at all, has OCAAT changed
since 1978, and why (E.g. was it to
meet current (changing) students’
needs)? Particularly in the last 10
years?
3. According to the website, courses
meet for three and a half weeks 9-11
a.m. and 1-3 p.m., is that correct? Is
that applicable to all classes?
4. Do students take their tests in class
or at a testing center? Why or why
not?
5. Do you have any seven-week terms
or terms lasting longer than 18 days?
Does your academic calendar
diverge from the three and a half
week term at all, and if so, how?
6. If so, what classes have you found
pair well in terms longer than 18
days? Are there interdisciplinary
courses or prerequisite and partner
courses offered this way?
7. Do you have living-learning
communities? If so, how are they
arranged
8. Has the OCAAT worked well for the
institution, if so how, if not, how has
it not? What are its strengths, what
are its weaknesses?
9. Have you conducted a survey of
students and staff and faculty on
OCAAT? What did you find in terms
of students’ satisfaction with the
system and staff and faculty’s
satisfaction with it?
10. Are there any proposed initiatives or
expected changes to OCAAT? Are
there any changes you foresee in the
next five to 10 years?
Block Initiatives 49
11. Are there other academic calendars
you have tried, plan to try?
Questions for Colorado College Faculty,
September 22, 2009
1. What is your role and when did you
start your position at Colorado?
2. Had you worked at any colleges or
universities before?
3. What led to the adoption of the block
in 1970?
4. How, if at all, has the block changed,
and how if at all has it changed in
order to manage student expectations
and produce better learning
outcomes? Particularly in the last 10
years?
5. According to the website, courses
meet for three and a half weeks with
no specific limits to the time of day?
What times do most classes meet?
6. Are any courses part morning and
part afternoon, in terms of meeting
times?
7. The website indicates there are halfblock courses? Please explain their
format, how many classes at one
time, how do you determine which
courses are taught in the format?
8. For the yearlong courses, what
courses are taught in that format, are
they just one at a time, and how is it
decided what classes are taught in
that format?
9. Do students take their tests in class
or at a testing center? Why or why
not?
10. Do you have any seven-week terms,
effectively two blocks? If so, what
classes are taught then, and how
many at a time?
11. If so, what classes have you found
pair well in terms longer than 18
days? Are there interdisciplinary
courses or prerequisite and partner
courses offered this way?
12. Do you have living-learning
communities? If so, how are they
arranged
13. Has the block worked well for the
institution, if so how, if not, how has
it not? What are its strengths, what
are its weaknesses?
14. Have you conducted a survey of
students and staff and faculty on
block? What did you find in terms of
students’ satisfaction with the system
and staff and faculty’s satisfaction?
15. Are there any proposed initiatives or
expected changes to block? Are there
any changes you foresee in the next
five to 10 years?
16. Are there other academic calendars
you have tried, plan to try?
Block Initiatives 50
Appendix B
Email for Volunteers
Email Text: Faculty
You are invited to participate in a focus
group to discuss the strategic plan goals for
“Enhancing the Block Schedule.” The focus
groups will be held at 9:00 and 3:00 on
Monday, November 2 in the Brotherton
Boardroom of the Library. Refreshments
will be
provided. The focus groups will be
facilitated by Teresa Bagamery Clark, a
doctoral
candidate in Higher Education at Vanderbilt
University. Ms. Clark will use the
information provided in the focus group in
her doctoral project. She will also share an
aggregation of the information she collects
with the College leadership team, so we can
use it as we implement the strategic plan.
Your input is important! Thank you in
advance
for your participation in this study!
Email Text: Staff
You are invited to participate in a focus
group to discuss the strategic plan goals for
“Enhancing the Block Schedule.” The focus
groups will be held at 11:00 and 1:00 on
Monday, November 2 in the Brotherton
Boardroom of the Library. Refreshments
will be
provided. The focus groups will be
facilitated by Teresa Bagamery Clark, a
doctoral
candidate in Higher Education at Vanderbilt
University. Ms. Clark will use the
information provided in the focus group in
her doctoral project. She will also share an
aggregation of the information she collects
with the College leadership team, so we can
use it as we implement the strategic plan.
Your input is important! Thank you in
advance
for your participation in this study!
Block Initiatives 51
Appendix C
Focus Groups Interview Protocol
Staff
1. Baseline
a. Did you work at Tusculum before the
Block? (If so, please describe the
difference(s) between pre-Block and current
Tusculum.
b. Were any of you ever a student at
Tusculum?
c. How many years have you worked here?
d. Describe how you feel about your job at
Tusculum.
e. How would you describe the Block at
Tusculum?
f. What, if any, are the positives of the Block
the way it is currently operating?
g. In what ways, if any, has the Block
changed since you began working at
Tusculum?
h. Are you aware of initiatives to alter the
Block? If so, list the proposed initiatives you
have heard of.
2. Costs and benefits
a. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to “take two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a seven-week period”
would affect how you feel about your job at
Tusculum?
b. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
c. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to “move current class
scheduling…to meeting 1 ½ hours in the
morning and 1 ½ hours in the afternoon for
18 days” would affect how you feel about
your job at Tusculum?
d. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
e. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to remove assessment from class
sessions and develop a Testing Center would
affect how you feel about your job at
Tusculum?
f. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
3. Current students’ needs
a. Which, if any, of these initiatives meets
the needs of Tusculum’s current students?
(Two courses in seven weeks, One course
split between morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Which one(s) and
how?
b. Which ones, if any, do not meet the needs
of Tusculum’s current students? (Two
courses in seven weeks, One course split
between morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Why not?
4. Other initiatives
a. What initiative(s) would you add to the
list with these three, if you would add any?
b. What initiative(s), if any, among these
three would you remove from
consideration?
5. Next to implement
a. After the cohort living-learning
communities, which initiative would you
like to see implemented next, if any? Why?
b. Is there some other initiative you would
like to see implemented next instead of one
of these three?
6. Alternative calendar
a. What academic calendar (other than the
current Block, the seven-week period, or the
traditional semester), if any, have you heard
of or read about? Please describe.
b. What academic calendar would you
recommend for Tusculum and why? Please
describe that calendar.
Faculty
1. Baseline
a. Did you work at Tusculum before the
Block? (If so, please describe the
difference(s) between pre-Block and current
Tusculum.
b. Were any of you ever a student at
Tusculum?
Block Initiatives 52
c. How many years have you worked here?
d. Describe how you feel about your
position at Tusculum.
e. How would you describe the Block at
Tusculum?
f. What, if any, are the positives of the Block
the way it is currently operating?
g. In what ways, if any, has the Block
changed since you began your academic
appointment at Tusculum?
h. Are you aware of initiatives to alter the
Block? If so, list the proposed initiatives you
have heard of.
2. Costs and benefits
a. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to “take two compatible courses,
simultaneously, over a seven-week period”
would affect how you feel about your
position at Tusculum?
g. If Tusculum enacted the initiative of “two
compatible courses, simultaneously, over a
seven-week period,” how would that change
your course preparation? Classroom
instruction?
h. If Tusculum enacted the initiative of “two
compatible courses, simultaneously, over a
seven-week period,” would you consider
leaving your academic appointment at
Tusculum? Would you leave?
b. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
c. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to “move current class
scheduling…to meeting 1 ½ hours in the
morning and 1 ½ hours in the afternoon for
18 days” would affect how you feel about
your position at Tusculum?
i. If Tusculum enacted the initiative to
“move current class scheduling…to meeting
1 ½ hours in the morning and 1 ½ hours in
the afternoon for 18 days,” how would that
change your course preparation? Classroom
instruction?
j. If Tusculum enacted the initiative to
“move current class scheduling…to meeting
1 1/2 hours in the morning and 1 ½ hours in
the afternoon for 18 days,” would you
consider leaving your academic appointment
at Tusculum? Would you leave?
d. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
e. In what ways, if at all, do you think the
initiative to remove assessment from class
sessions and develop a Testing Center would
affect how you feel about your position at
Tusculum?
k. If Tusculum enacted the initiative to
remove assessment from class sessions and
develop a Testing Center how would that
change your course preparation? Classroom
instruction?
l. If Tusculum enacted the initiative to
remove assessment from class sessions and
develop a Testing Center would you
consider leaving your academic appointment
at Tusculum? Would you leave?
f. How, if at all, would this initiative cost
you financially?
3. Current students’ needs
a. Which, if any, of these initiatives meets
the needs of Tusculum’s current students?
(Two courses in seven weeks, One course
split between morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Which one(s) and
how?
b. Which ones, if any, do not meet the needs
of Tusculum’s current students? (Two
courses in seven weeks, One course split
between morning and afternoon in the
Block, Testing Center.) Why not?
4. Other initiatives
a. What initiative(s) would you add to the
list with these three, if you would add any?
b. What initiative(s), if any, among these
three would you remove from
consideration?
5. Next to implement
a. After the cohort living-learning
communities, which initiative would you
like to see implemented next, if any? Why?
c. Do you think “students will have more
time for distributive practice in concept-
Block Initiatives 53
dense coursework” with the initiative to
“take two compatible classes simultaneously
over a seven week period?” Why or why
not?
d. Do you think the initiative meeting for
class 1 ½ hours in the morning and 1-½
hours in the afternoon would “minimize
challenge of maintaining academic
engagement…and increase opportunities for
student and faculty outside-of-class
interaction? Why or why not?
e. Do you think you will have “more
instructional time within the classroom
because of testing…having been removed”
and placed in a Testing Center? Why or why
not?
b. Is there some other initiative you would
like to see implemented next instead of one
of these three?
6. Alternative calendar
a. What academic calendar (other than the
current Block, the seven-week period, or the
traditional semester), if any, have you heard
of or read about? Please describe.
b. What academic calendar would you
recommend for Tusculum and why? Please
describe that calendar.
Block Initiatives 54
Appendix D
Principal Investigator: Teresa Bagamery
Clark Revision Date: 10-20-09
Study Title: Strategic Initiatives for Block
Enhancement
Institution/Hospital: Tusculum College
1 of 2
You are being asked to participate in a focus
group that may result in one or more of
Tusculum’s
strategic initiatives being implemented. You
will not be asked to provide any identifying
information; I
will use pseudonyms in my notes as well as
in my paper. The focus groups may last up
to 90 minutes. I
will audiotape the focus groups if all
participants agree to be voice-recorded.
Please indicate below
whether you agree or disagree to being
voice-recorded:
This informed consent document applies to
adults.
____Agree to voice-recording
____Disagree to voice recording
Name of participant:
____________________________________
_____ Age: ________
3. EXPECTED COSTS:
There are no costs to participate in the study.
Consent Form
Vanderbilt University Institutional Review
Board
Informed Consent Document for Research
The following information is provided to
inform you about the research project and
your
participation in it. Please read this form
carefully and feel free to ask any questions
you may
have about this study and the information
given below. You will be given an
opportunity to ask
questions, and your questions will be
answered. Also, you will be given a copy of
this consent
form.
1. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
The purpose of this study is to investigate
Tusculum College’s proposed strategic
initiatives for
enhancing the Block and make
recommendations on implementation.
2. WHAT WE WILL ASK YOU TO DO:
4. RISKS OF PARTICIPATION:
There are minimal to no risks associated
with this study; however, you may find
taking the time to
participate an inconvenience.
5. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION:
a) The potential benefits include improving
the Block for students, faculty, and staff.
Specific
improvements may include new class times,
pairing complementary courses over two
blocks,
and/or centralizing student assessment.
However, there may be no direct benefits to
the
participants.
6. COMPENSATION:
Participants will not be compensated, but the
Provost will provide refreshments.
7. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION:
Block Initiatives 55
Your participation in the study is completely
voluntary. You may refuse to participate, or
you may stop
participating at any time and for any reason,
without any penalty. If you would like to
withdraw from the
Date of IRB Approval: 10-21-2009
Date of IRB Expiration: 10-20-2010
Vanderbilt University Institutional Review
Board
Informed Consent Document for Research
Principal Investigator: Teresa Bagamery
Clark Revision Date: 10-20-09
Study Title: Strategic Initiatives for Block
Enhancement
Institution/Hospital: Tusculum College
2 of 2
study, please tell Teresa Bagamery Clark
(teresa.b.clark@vanderbilt.edu) or 615-4955093. If you choose to withdraw, we will not
use any data collected from you prior to
your withdrawal.
8. CONFIDENTIALITY:
Other participants in your focus group will
know how you answer questions. While I
will discourage
anyone from sharing this information
outside of the group, I cannot guarantee
confidentiality by
other focus group members. I will do our
best to keep all of your personal information
private and
confidential but absolute confidentiality
cannot be guaranteed. Your information may
be shared with
institutional and/or governmental
authorities, such as the Vanderbilt
University Institutional Review
Board; if you or someone else is in danger
or if we are required to do so by law. I will
maintain the
audiotapes until my advisor and program at
Vanderbilt satisfactorily accept the final
paper. At that time,
I will destroy the tapes.
9. WHOM TO CONTACT
If you should have any questions about this
research study or possibly injury, please feel
free to contact
Teresa Bagamery Clark at 615-495-5093 or
her Faculty Advisor, Dr. John Braxton at
615-322-8021.
For additional information about giving
consent or your rights as a participant in this
study, please feel
free to contact the Vanderbilt University
Institutional Review Board Office at (615)
322-2918 or toll free
at (866) 224-8273.
STATEMENT BY PERSON AGREEING
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY
I have read this informed consent document
and the material contained in it has been
explained to me
verbally. All my questions have been
answered, and I freely and voluntarily
choose to participate in this
study under the conditions outlined above. I
also acknowledge that I have received a
copy of this form.
Date
Signature of volunteer
Consent obtained by:
Date Signature
Printed Name and Title
Date of IRB Approval: 10-21-2009
Date of IRB Expiration: 10-20-20
Block Initiatives 56
Appendix E
Matrices
Project Questions by Initiative
4.1
4.2
4.4
Costs and
Benefits
X
X
X
Students’
Needs
X
X
X
Other
Initiatives
Next
Initiative
X
X
X
Other
Blocks
Other
Calendars
X
Project Questions by Focus Group Questions
Costs and
Benefits
2 a-l
Students’
Needs
3 a-b
Other
Initiatives
4 a-b
Next
Initiatives
5 a-e
Other
Blocks
Other
Calendars
6 a-b
Initiatives by Focus Group Questions
4.1
2 a-b
2 g-h
5c
4.2
2 c-d
2 i-j
5d
4.4
2 e-f
2 k-l
5e
Project Questions by Methods
Focus Groups
Phone Calls
Websites/Email
Literature
Costs and
Benefits
X
X
Students’
Needs
X
X
Other
Initiatives
X
X
X
Other
Blocks
X
X
X
Other
Calendars
X
X
Block Initiatives 57
Appendix F
Tusculum with courses in a six-week
schedule, one class meeting per week.
Baseline
The purpose of the first section of focus
group questions served to establish a
foundation, or baseline, to understand the
participants in terms of experience with the
Block and time at Tusculum. For example,
it was important to know if someone felt
negatively about the Block before
continuing with questions concerning
changing the Block, as preexisting
sentiments may affect other answers. This
group of questions explored how many years
the focus group participants had worked at
Tusculum, whether any of them had been a
student there, and their feelings about the
Block.
One female staff member indicated she had
formerly been a student at Tusculum but
graduated in 1991, before the Block began.
She participated in a focus group pertaining
to the Block before its implementation, and
later completed an internship in the Block
format. A male staff member had worked at
Salem International University (Salem, West
Virginia), which he called a block system.
Salem International’s courses run one course
per month, and students begin a new course
each month (Salem International
University). While this closely resembles
the Block, it does not align as closely as
institutions such as Colorado College and
Cornell College.
A female faculty member said she had
worked in the Registrar’s Office before the
Block began and suggested the office
became busier with the 18-classday schedule
compared to a traditional semester calendar.
Another faculty member had been a student
at Tusculum for two years on the semesterschedule and completed a master’s degree at
Staff members who participated in the focus
groups indicated their years of service at
Tusculum as such: for the men; 20, three,
and two years, and for the women; 15, 10,
five, seven and a half, nine and a half, and
six years. The faculty participants stated
they had each worked at Tusculum,
respectively: 25, 23, 20, 15 and a half, 15,
13, seven, two people for six and a half
years, six, five, and two people for four
years. The faculty groups included a total of
five males and nine females. Overall, eight
men and 15 women participated in the focus
groups.
Members of the focus groups were asked
how they feel about their job or position at
Tusculum as well as how they would
describe the Block. Both faculty and staff,
generally, spoke positively about their role
as well as the Block. Common answers
included “I enjoy” what I do and working
here is “rewarding” but “busy.” The groups,
overall, expressed positive sentiments
concerning the Block. They saw the Block’s
advantages in providing “hands-on
experience” and “off-campus opportunities.”
They said the Block is “unique,” “the
number one reason students come,” and “a
good recruitment tool.”
There was definitely a hesitation among
focus group participants to enact too many
alterations to the Block. One faculty
member, recognizing the Block as the
primary recruitment driver cautioned that
the administration be “careful before
throwing the baby out with the bathwater”
by changing the Block. Another said, “I
would hate to see us move away from the
Block entirely.” A staff person commented,
“Students love the Block.”
Block Initiatives 58
However, some negative comments
accompanied the staff and faculty’s praise of
the Block. Members expressed frustration at
how “challenging” the Block is for them. In
particular, the Block was cited as posing a
challenge for business, science, and fine arts
classes. Respondents indicated the schedule
required students to complete a large amount
of class work in a short period of time, and
staff thought the Block was “labor-intensive
for the faculty.” Focus group participants
also cited that the Block is “resourceintensive” for such areas as physical space
and computer bandwidth. However, one
staff member said, “The system is as good
as it’s going to get.”
Financial resource constraints were also
reported in regards to off-campus trips.
Whereas the staff noted an increase in outof-class opportunities, the faculty suggested
off-campus travel had decreased since the
Block first began due to transportation and
costs. All of the focus group volunteers
expressed an awareness of the strategic
initiatives posed for Block enhancement, but
one male faculty member said it was his first
time seeing “some” of the initiatives. Two
female faculty members shared that they
worked on the strategic planning committee
that proposed the initiatives.
Block Initiatives 59
Appendix G

Other measures, gleaned from the literature,
that Tusculum may wish to consider:

School Pride Wednesdays: At
Western State College in Colorado,
classes do not meet before 2:00 p.m.
on Wednesdays, when the college
provides activities to students for
“Western Wednesdays.” (Cash et al,
1993).

Lunch Hour Activities: From a study
conducted by the Los Rios
Community College District, to
prevent a possible decline in student
activities on the compressed
calendar, colleges recommend
building activities into a common
lunch hour (Beachler, 2003).

Three-Year Degree: At Southern
New Hampshire University, students
can effectively save a year of tuition
payments and graduate in three years
without needing to take summer,
night, or weekend courses.
Manchester College, however, does
use two summers of web courses
called “Fast Forward” to speed its
students along (Carlson and Lipka,
2009).

Stress Management Program:
Research was conducted on a blockstyle accounting class, lasting three
hours per day for three weeks. A
marginal difference occurred in the
increased stress exhibited in the
compressed calendar (Howell and
Johnson, 1982).
Cross-Disciplinary Learning:
Washtenaw Community College in
Ann Arbor, Michigan provides
“cross-disciplinary” studies among
the arts and humanities, natural
sciences, technology, and social
science (Altieri and Cygnar, 1997).
Cy-Fair utilizes an interdisciplinary
office arrangement for faculty to
collaborate across disciplines; for
example, traditional departments are
not clustered together in wings,
rather an English professor may sit
next to a business professor next to a
science professor, and so on
(Ashburn, 2006).
Block Initiatives 60
References
Aguilar, S. (2004). A study on the efficacy
of compressed scheduling formats in
higher education. Ed.D. dissertation,
University of La Verne, CA.
Retrieved from ProQuest.
Altieri, G. and Cygnar, P.M. (1997). A new
model for general education in
associate's degree programs:
Developing and teaching a core
across the curriculum. Community
College Review, 25, 3-19. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Angrist, J., Lang, D., and Oreopoulos, P.
(2005). Lead them to water and pay
them to drink: An experiment with
services and incentives for college
achievement. NBER Working Paper
Series. Cambridge, M.A.: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Ashburn, E. (April 2006). A Texas college
experiments with class schedules and
collaboration. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 52(34), A39.
Retrieved from Wilson Web.
Baustian, M., Bentley, S., and Wandersee, J.
(July/August 2008). Innovative
assessment tools for a short, fastpaced, summer field course. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 37(6),
37-43. Retrieved from Wilson Web.
Beachler, J. (2003). Results of the
alternative calendar survey: A
survey of faculty, classified staff
and administrators at California
community colleges that have moved
from an 18-week semester to a
compressed calendar. Retrieved from ERIC.
Bell, J. (Summer 2001). Length of course
and levels of statistics anxiety.
Education, 121(4), 713-16. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Bess, J. (2000). Tasks, talents, and
temperaments in teaching: The
challenge of compatibility. James
L. Bess, Ed. Teaching Alone,
Teaching Together, 1-31. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borges, N., Richard, G., and Duffy, R.
(December 2007). Career maturity of
students in accelerated versus
traditional programs. The Career
Development Quarterly, 56(2), 171176.
Boyd, D. (2007). Effective teaching in
accelerated learning programs. Adult
Learning, 15(1/2), 40-43. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Braxton, J. and Del Favero, M. (2000). The
researcher: Generating knowledge
for team teaching. James L. Bess,
Ed. Teaching Alone, Teaching
Together, 62-84. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Brooks, G. (1969). The long-range plan for
Colorado college. Retrieved from
ERIC.
Bugay, D. (2000). The five-week class of
the University of Phoenix corporate
model can be utilized by community
colleges. Ph.D. dissertation, The
Union Institute, OH. Retrieved
from ProQuest.
Block Initiatives 61
Burton, L. (2001). Interdisciplinary
curriculum: Retrospect and prospect.
Music Educators Journal, 87(5),
Special Focus: Interdisciplinary
Curriculum, 17-21, 66. MENC: The
National Association for Music
Education. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Cox, M., Herner, J., and Demczyk, M.
(2006). Provision of testing
accommodations for students with
disabilities on statewide
assessments. Remedial and
Special Education, 27(6), 346-54.
Retrieved from Wilson Web.
Carley, M. (2002). Community college
compressed calendars: Results of a
student survey and a faculty survey.
Retrieved from ERIC.
Creating a proctoring system that works.
Distance Education Report, 8(24),
1. 6. Dec. 15, 2004. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Carlson, S. and Lipka, S (2009). Colleges
offer a degree in three. The
Chronicle of Higher Education,
55(39), June 2009, A20-1. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Cash, R. et al. (1993). Reinventing
community by changing the
academic calendar: Changing
time and the consequences.
Retrieved from ERIC.
Colorado College. Accessed at
http://www.coloradocollege.edu.
Conrad, C. (1997). ‘Shaping the college
curriculum’: Academic plans in
action. Review. The Journal of
Higher Education, 68(6), 711-713.
Retrieved via ProQuest.
Cornell College. Accessed at
http://www.cornellcollege.edu.
Cowan, J., George, J., and Pinheiro-Torres,
A. (2004). Alignment of
developments in higher
education. Higher Education, 48(4),
439-459. Springer. Retrieved from
JSTOR.
Daniel, E. (2000). A review of timeshortened courses across disciplines.
College Student Journal, 34(2), June
2000, 298-308. Retrieved from
Wilson Web.
Dervarics, C. (2004). Educators urge focus
on 'year-round' college. Black Issues
in Higher Education, 21(8), 6-7.
Retrieved from ProQuest.
Donald, J. (2000). The pedagogue: Creating
designs for teaching. James L. Bess, Ed.
Teaching Alone, Teaching Together,
35-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Donnelly-Smith, L. (2008). Enhancing
intentionality in the requirement-free
curriculum. Peer Review, 10(4), 911. Retrieved from ProQuest.
Eastern Kentucky University Living
Learning Communities. Accessed at
http://www.housing.eku.edu/mainme
nu_links/living_learning.php.
Florida State University Living Learning
Communities. Accessed at
http://livinglearningcommunities.fsu.
edu.
Block Initiatives 62
Gallo, M. and Odu, M. (2009). Examining
the relationship between class
scheduling and student achievement
in college algebra. Community
College Review 36(4) April 2009,
299-325. Retrieved from Wilson
Web.
Glenn, D. (May 2009). Colleges seek new
ways to give students a general
education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 55(38), A8. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Grieve, D. (1990). Testing and grading. A
Handbook for Adjunct/Part-Time
Faculty and Teachers of Adults, Ch.
5, 70-82. Cleveland, OH: Info-Tech
Inc.
Gulley, S. and Floyd, J. (December
2002/February 2003). Campus
triage: Planning for
comprehensive change. Planning for
Higher Education, 31(2), 5-14.
Hill, D. (2008). Qualitative timetabling: An
organizational approach to
improving university course
scheduling. College Quarterly,
11(3). Toronto: Seneca College of
Applied Arts and Technologies.
Retrieved from ERIC.
Howell, W., and Johnson, L. (1982). An
evaluation of the compressed-course
format for instruction in
accounting. The Accounting
Review, 57(2), 403. Retrieved
from ProQuest.
Jacobs, J. (Nov. 17, 2009). Interdisciplinary
hype. The Chronicle Review, B4-5.
Lorenzetti, J. (2006). Proctoring
assessments: Benefits & challenges.
Distance Education Report, 10(8),
5-6. Retrieved from Wilson Web.
Malesic, J. (March 2009). A scholarly book
and a 4/4 teaching load. The
Chronicle of Higher Education,
55(26), A35 and A37. Retrieved
from Wilson Web.
Matzell, R. et al. (1995). A study of the term
and semester calendars in a two year
community college. Retrieved from
ERIC.
Melton, R. (1996). Learning outcomes for
higher education: Some key issues.
British Journal of Educational
Studies, 44(4), 409-425. Blackwell
Publishing on behalf of the Society
for Educational Studies. Retrieved
from JSTOR.
Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992).
Cycles of organizational change.
Strategic Management
Journal, 13, 39-59.
Moffatt, M. (1991). College life:
Undergraduate culture and higher
education. The Journal of Higher
Education, 62(1),44-61. Retrieved
from JSTOR.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen,
K. (2004). Models of innovative
knowledge communities and three
metaphors of learning. Review of
Educational Research, 74(4), 557576. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Block Initiatives 63
Palomba, C. and Banta, T. (1999).
Assessment essentials: planning,
implementing, and improving
assessment in higher education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Paris, D. (2007). Business and the liberal
arts: Integrating professional and liberal
education. Report of a symposium on
the liberal arts and business. Council
of Independent Colleges. Retrieved
from ERIC.
Peach, B., Bukhergee, A., Hornyak, M.
(July/August 2007) Assessing
critical thinking: A college's journey
and lessons learned. Journal of
Education for Business, 82(6), 31320. Retrieved from Wilson Web.
Pitiniak, M. and Royer, J. (2001). Testing
accommodations for examinees with
disabilities: A review of
psychometric, legal, and social
policy issues. Review of Educational
Research, 71(1), 53-104. Educational
Research Association. Retrieved
from JSTOR.
Pope, J. (October 2007). College teaches
one class at a time. The Associated
Press.
“Quality Control in Ethnographic Research:
Issues of Reliability and Validity.”
Class Handout. November 2008.
Vanderbilt University.
Quest University. Accessed at
http://www.questu.ca.
Regents Online Degree Program. Accessed
at
http://www.rodp.org/students/proctor
sites.htm.
Salem International University. Accessed at
http://www.salemu.edu.
Scott, S. (2009). Student academic
performance in skills-based
technology courses delivered
through different scheduling
formats. Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Montana, MT.
Retrieved from ProQuest.
Sonner, M. (2010). Doctoral report census.
Excel spreadsheet. Tusculum
College Human Resources Office.
Speck, B. (2000). The assessor: Appraising
student and team performance.
James L. Bess, Ed. Teaching Alone,
Teaching Together, 173-199. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Snowden, M. (2004). Learning communities
as transformative pedagogy:
Centering diversity in introductory
sociology. Teaching Sociology,
32(3), 291-303. American
Sociological Association.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Toppino, T., FearnowKenney, M., Kiepert,
M., and Teremula, A. (2009). The
spacing effect in intentional and
incidental free recall by children and
adults: Limits on the automatically
hypothesis. Memory &
Cognition, 37(3), 316-25. Retrieved
from ProQuest.
The University of Denver Living and
Learning Communities. Accessed at
http://www.du.edu/livinglearning.
The University of Montana Western.
Accessed at http://umwestern.edu.
Block Initiatives 64
The University of North Carolina- Chapel
Hill Housing. Accessed at
http://housing.unc.edu.
The University of Tennessee- Knoxville
Admissions. Accessed at
http://admissions.utk.edu/undergradu
ate/academics/community.shtml.
Washington and Lee University. Accessed at
http://www.wiu.edu.
Weick, K. Educational organizations as
loosely coupled systems. ASHE
Reader on Organization and
Governance in Higher Education.
Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in
higher education: Moves towards
theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice. Higher
Education, 45(4), 477-501. Springer.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
Young, J. (2001). Texas colleges collaborate
to offer online students convenient
proctored tests. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 47(26), A43.
Retrieved from Wilson Web.