A Doubled Period, Two-Subject Program for High-School Students

By:  R. A. Greig

Published in The Clearing House

Our Senior-High-School (grades ten to twelve) program, simply stated, differs from the traditional high school program in the fact that our pupils carry two subjects at a time instead of four.  They have double periods in each of these classes instead of single periods, and complete one unit of work in two subjects in each semester rather than a half unit in four subjects.  At the end of a school year, they have completed four units just as under the other plan. 

The laboratory subjects may get their full quota of time; the periods through the day are of different lengths with two clock-hour periods for those subjects.  Of course, other classes scheduled during laboratory hours have more time.  We have aimed to schedule most of our English classes during the long periods since our pupils seem to need more time for English than for other subjects. 

The primary purpose of working out such a program has been to improve the pupils’ method of learning.  Besides acquiring information in the different fields, it has long been recognized that the acquisition of good study habits was one of the most desired outcomes of a high-school education.  In spite of that fact, in our traditional school, we have chased the pupils from one subject to another, expecting everyone at the end of the day to have mastered a certain little-assigned block of four different subjects.   The ordinary pupil has no difficulty in quickly cooling off from a subject but does not so quickly warm up to a new subject when the tardy bell for the succeeding period rings.  Our program alters not the kind but the degree of the offense against good study habits in that the changes are fewer.  

Our teacher certifying and accrediting organizations have long contended that a teacher’s effectiveness was, generally speaking, inversely proportional to the number of fields in which she taught, and they attempted to limit the number of fields in which she could teach.  If a teacher cannot effectively and instantly change from one subject to another, why should we expect the high-school pupil to turn a switch four times or more a day and automatically warm up to a new subject without loss of time or interest in any one of the four?  We shouldn't, but we did.  Consequently, we enlarged upon already poor study habits.

We have, for several years, suggested to our teachers that they have supervised the study.  Some went so far as to ring a bell at the end of twenty-five or thirty minutes to signify that the remainder of the period was for work by the pupil.   Those who have taught or supervised schools attempting to divide fifty minutes or shorter periods into teaching and supervised study periods know that there was very little if any constructive supervised study.  Usually, even the very best teacher brought the pupils to the point of readiness for some real purposeful work on the assigned lesson only to have the bell ring.  The pupils then left for the next class and, upon arrival, the teacher turned a switch in the hope that there was a live current for her subject.  The warming-up period by the first teacher was lost.  The pupils were stone cold for the second teacher.  It was an attempt to eradicate, at least partially, such problems that we worked on for several years before finally adopting the double period, two-subject program. 

Our results to date seem to indicate:

1.        Fewer failures

2.       More ground covered

3.       Greater possibility of grouping in classes according to their ability in the subject.  That is probably due to the size of our school and may not affect a larger school.

4.       More thorough mastery of subject matter as evidenced by standardized tests

5.       Increasing tendency to teach all subjects on the laboratory method

6.       A getting away from a single textbook and a wider reading-wider study type of classroom work

7.       Increasing tendency towards unit instruction

8.       Better opportunity for a teacher to become acquainted with her pupils.  If a teacher has three double-period classed of 30 each, she has only 90 pupils to become acquainted with while with the other with 6 classes of 30 she would have 180

9.       The development of a deeper interest in a subject- especially by the best student, since they have time for wider reading

10.   A guarantee of at least some study under guidance by the student who formerly bluffed

11.   Lessening of the work in making a program of classes.  This again may be due to the size of our school.  We have semester promotion.  Our midyear class coming into the tenth grade was so small that the classes in elective subjects were either very small of the pupils could not have the opportunity of full selection.  With this, they fell into the regular classes since classes start at this year

12.   Lessening of the passing of classes

13.   Cut in textbook cost by approximately fifty percent since pupils need only two books at a time – this especially where the school furnaces the books.  These savings will be partially cut in classrooms reference libraries are built up as this should be for the laboratory method

14.   A necessity for a few single-period classes to allow some students who can and want to graduate in less than three years from senior high school

15.   Some difficulty may be felt in a school when there are many transfers from other schools entering the semester; but, if they come at the end of the semester and have completed their work there is no difficulty.

We frankly admit this schedule to be an experiment.  Though it appears to be working to the advantage of our pupils, it is not panacea.  We still have our problems.  It has no doubt, worked smoothly with us because of the fact that all but one teacher has taught in summer school or had other experience with double-period classes.  The teachers asked for it and were, therefore, in sympathy with it.