iii, 223 [54] leaves : ill. ; 26 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / Thesis (Ph.D.1973) from the Dept. of Computing Science, University of Adelaide

Thesis (M.S.)--Rochester Institute of Technology, 1985. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 65-66).

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2000. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.M.E.) Florida State University, 2007. / Advisor: Steven Kelly, Florida State University, College of Music. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed 10-8-2007). Document formatted into pages; contains 72 pages. Includes biographical sketch. Includes bibliographical references.

Kin-hong Wong. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 67-70). / Chapter Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter Chapter 2 --- Literature Review --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1 --- Modelling --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Integer Programming Model --- p.4 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Network Flow Model --- p.6 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Graph Colouring Model --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2 --- Heuristic Approach --- p.10 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- Lesson Selection Strategy --- p.11 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Time Slot Selection Strategy --- p.12 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- Conflict handling Strategy --- p.13 / Chapter 2.3 --- Remarks --- p.15 / Chapter Chapter 3 --- Project Overview --- p.16 / Chapter 3.1 --- The Work Flow --- p.16 / Chapter 3.2 --- System Objectives --- p.17 / Chapter 3.3 --- An Incremental Construction Approach --- p.18 / Chapter 3.4 --- A Decision Support System --- p.19 / Chapter Chapter 4 --- Task Analysis --- p.21 / Chapter 4.1 --- Three-Stage Task Model --- p.21 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Conflict Free (CF) Stage --- p.22 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Conflict Avoidance (CA) Stage --- p.23 / Chapter 4.1.3 --- Conflict Resolution (CR) Stage --- p.24 / Chapter 4.2 --- System Supports --- p.24 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Supports for CF Stage --- p.24 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- Supports for CA Stage --- p.25 / Chapter 4.2.3 --- Supports for CR Stage --- p.25 / Chapter Chapter 5 --- System Design --- p.27 / Chapter 5.1 --- User Interface --- p.28 / Chapter 5.2 --- Data Model --- p.28 / Chapter 5.2.1 --- Timetable Structure --- p.30 / Chapter 5.2.2 --- Resource Lists --- p.31 / Chapter 5.2.3 --- Lesson List --- p.33 / Chapter 5.2.4 --- History Log --- p.34 / Chapter 5.3 --- Operational Tools --- p.35 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Elementary Scheduling Functions --- p.35 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- AUTO Function --- p.36 / Chapter 5.3.3 --- FLAG/COMMIT/ABORT --- p.37 / Chapter 5.4 --- Analytical Tools --- p.39 / Chapter 5.4.1 --- Availability Table --- p.39 / Chapter 5.4.2 --- Operation History --- p.39 / Chapter 5.4.3 --- Slot Finder --- p.40 / Chapter 5.4.4 --- Scheduling Priority --- p.42 / Chapter 5.5 --- Remarks --- p.43 / Chapter Chapter 6 --- System Evaluation --- p.45 / Chapter 6.1 --- Case 1 --- p.46 / Chapter 6.2 --- Case 2 --- p.46 / Chapter 6.3 --- Case 3 --- p.47 / Chapter 6.4 --- Remarks --- p.48 / Chapter Chapter 7 --- Further Works --- p.50 / Chapter 7.1 --- Algorithmic Tools --- p.50 / Chapter 7.2 --- Post-Scheduling Room Assignment --- p.52 / Chapter 7.3 --- Input and Output Processors --- p.53 / Chapter 7.4 --- Electronic Tutorial Subsystem --- p.54 / Chapter 7.5 --- Task-Model-Based Help Subsystem --- p.54 / Chapter Chapter 8 --- Conclusions --- p.56 / Chapter Appendix A --- Database Definition --- p.58 / Chapter Appendix B --- Conflict Resolution Algorithm --- p.61 / Chapter Appendix C --- System Specification --- p.63 / References --- p.67

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1977. / Title from title page screen, viewed Jan. 5, 2005. Dissertation Committee: Elwood Egelston (chair), Ronald Laymon, John McCarthy, Walter Pierce, Ronald Halinski. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 145-150) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin, 1996. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliography.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Illinois State University, 1998. / Title from title page screen, viewed July 11, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Kenneth H. Strand (chair), George Padavil, Paul J. Baker, Rodney P. Riegle, Larry McNeal. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 163-172) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis. 1975. Ph.D.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Alfred P. Sloan School of Management. / Vita. / Bibliography: leaves 231-237. / Ph.D.

One purpose of this study was to identify the relationship, if any, that existed between method of scheduling and achievement in reading and mathematics. A second purpose of this study was to identify the relationship, if any, that existed between method of scheduling and student attitudes toward school and learning. A third purpose of the study was to identify what teachers using parallel block scheduling perceived as positive and negative aspects of parallel block scheduling.Data from ISTEP (Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress) scores, student questionnaires, and teacher interviews were used to compare the parallel block scheduled school and the surface scheduled school. ISTEP scores were compared using One Way Analyses of Variance to check equivalency of the two schools at the beginning and at the end of the study and Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance to test the hypotheses. Student questionnairesmeasuring student attitudes toward school and learning were compared for the two schools using Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance. Teachers at the parallel block scheduled school were interviewed to analyze their perceptions of parallel block scheduling.Statistically significant differences were found in mathematics achievement in favor of the parallel block scheduled school. No statistically significant differences were found in reading achievement between the parallel block scheduled school and the surface scheduled school. Statistically significant differences in students' attitudes toward school and learning between the two types of scheduling were found in three out of the four categories. Differences were found in students' beliefs about how well they were learning, students' attitudes toward themselves as learners, and students' beliefs about how others see them as learners in favor of the parallel block scheduled school. No difference was found in students' attitudes toward school. Responses from interviews of teachers using parallel block scheduling indicated that the teachers felt parallel block scheduling had benefitted students in terms of achievement, attitudes toward school and learning, and in their effectiveness as teachers. / Department of Educational Leadership