A■Level Mathematics School■Based Project

Estimating the Optimal Time for School Assembly to Reduce Class

Disruptions

School: Royalty Academy (replace with actual school name)

Learner: ____________________________

Date: _______________________________
1. Problem Identification
1.1 Description of the Problem / Gap
Assemblies at the school are sometimes held before lessons and sometimes mid■morning. Teachers report that
assemblies held later in the morning interrupt teaching blocks, reduce lesson time, and lower student concentration
afterwards. However, no data■driven study has been done to identify the assembly time that results in the least
disruption to teaching.

Identified Gap: Lack of school■specific statistical evidence linking assembly timing to the number of classroom
disruptions and student focus.

1.2 Statement of Intent

This project aims to determine an optimal time for school assembly by analysing the relationship between assembly
start time, classroom disruption frequency, and student focus levels, using statistical tools such as correlation,
regression, and graphical analysis. The goal is to recommend a schedule that maximises uninterrupted teaching
time and supports learner concentration.

1.3 Design / Project Specifications & Objectives

Parameter Specification / Notes
Population A■Level classes (Lower 6 & Upper 6)
Observation Period 3 weeks (15 school days)
Variables Collected Assembly time (min from start), Disruptions per day, Focus score (1–10)
Assembly Slots Tested Early (30 min), Mid (90 min), Late (150 min)
Analysis Correlation & linear regression (time→disruptions); trend in focus; compa
Tools Teacher disruption logs, student short focus rating, spreadsheet / calcula
Ethics No learner names; data aggregated by day

Objectives
• Record assembly start times, lesson disruptions, and student focus over 3 weeks.

• Analyse whether later assembly times are linked to more classroom disruptions.

• Fit a regression model to predict disruptions from assembly time.

• Compare focus levels across early, mid, and late assemblies.

• Recommend an assembly time that minimises disruption and supports focus.

2. Investigation of Related Ideas
2.1 Evidence of Related Ideas
Source Observation Relevance
School Timetable Assemblies held at 7:30 or 10:00. Varied timing allows comparison.
Teacher Feedback Mid■morning assemblies cut into teaching. Suggests early is better.
Research Summary Uninterrupted lessons improve retention. Supports early assemblies.
Attendance Records Late assemblies linked to tardiness. Timing affects return to class.
Student Focus Group Most prefer assembly before classes. Learner preference for early start.
Neighbouring School PolicyWeekly Monday assembly only. Lower disruption frequency.
Short Announcements Model
Shorter sessions waste less class time. Duration matters too.

2.2 Analysis of Ideas: Merits & Demerits

Idea Merit Demerit
Early assembly Protects lesson time. Requires earlier arrival.
Mid■morning assembly Allows updates after day starts. Interrupts class flow.
Short daily assembly Keeps info current. Frequent interruptions.
Weekly Monday assemblyFewer disruptions overall. Delay for urgent notices.
Notice board updates No class disruption. Low engagement; may be ignored.
SMS / App alerts Instant communication. Tech access unequal.
Combine w/ Period 1 Saves separate block. Cuts that subject’s teaching time.
3. Generation of Ideas / Possible Solutions
3.1 Possible Solutions and Their Merits & Demerits
OptionDescription Merits Demerits
A Early daily assembly (7:30) Minimal disruption; consistent routine. Earlier arrival; transport issues.
B Mid■morning assembly (10:00)
Announcements after roll call. Interrupts 2nd/3rd periods.
C Weekly early assembly (Mon)Less total time lost. Delay for mid■week issues.
D Hybrid: short early, longer Friday
Balance info & time. More planning required.
E Announcement screen + rare Saves
assembly
class time. Less personal; may be ignored.
F Year■group rotations Smaller groups; targeted. Complex scheduling.
G Assemblies only exam weeksFocus & motivation boost. No routine messaging rest of term.

Chosen Analytical Path: Evaluate disruption & focus across three tested times (30, 90, 150 min) and recommend
an optimal time based on observed data.
4. Development / Refinement of Chosen Idea
4.1 Indication of Choice
We proceed with comparing early (30 min), mid (90 min), and late (150 min) assemblies using disruption counts and
focus scores.

4.2 Justification of Choice

• Reflects actual scheduling patterns already used by the school.

• Directly measures impact on teaching time and student focus.

• Uses simple, transparent data that staff can collect weekly.

4.3 Development / Refinements

• Standardise assembly length to ~10 minutes for fair comparison.

• Have teachers record only lesson■stopping disruptions (not minor noise).

• Collect a 1–10 focus rating from each class; average by day.

• Ensure all three time slots occur multiple times during the study.

• Note special events (tests, weather) that might affect results.

• Repeat data collection in another term to confirm patterns.

5. Presentation of the Final Solution
5.1 Data Collected Over 3 Weeks (n = 15 days)
Day Assembly (min) Disruptions Focus (1–10)
Mon 30 1 9.1
Tue 150 5 6.7
Wed 150 3 7.5
Thu 90 4 8.3
Fri 30 2 9.1
Mon 30 0 8.9
Tue 30 1 9.3
Wed 150 5 6.7
Thu 90 3 8.2
Fri 150 4 6.9
Mon 30 1 9.6
Tue 150 6 6.4
Wed 150 7 7.5
Thu 30 2 10.0
Fri 30 1 10.0
5.2 Summary Statistics by Assembly Slot
Assembly (min) # Days Mean Disruptions Mean Focus
30 7 1.14 9.43
90 2 3.50 8.25
150 6 5.00 6.95

Early assemblies (30 min) show the lowest mean disruptions and the highest focus scores. Late assemblies (150
min) correspond with the most disruptions and the lowest focus.
5.3 Regression: Disruptions Predicted by Assembly Time
Mean Assembly Time (x■) = 86.00 min

Mean Disruptions (■) = 3.00

Sxx = Σ(x − x■)² = 46560.00

Syy = Σ(y − ■)² = 62.00

Sxy = Σ(x − x■)(y − ■) = 1500.00

Slope (b) = Sxy / Sxx = 0.0322

Intercept (a) = ■ − b·x■ = 0.2294

Regression Line: ■ = 0.23 + 0.032x

Correlation (r) = 0.8829

Coefficient of Determination (R²) = 0.7794

Interpretation: For every additional minute delay in assembly start, the predicted number of disruptions increases on
average by 0.032. Because r = 0.88, the relationship is strong and positive in this sample.
5.4 Graphical Results
Assembly Time vs Class Disruptions

The upward slope shows that later assemblies are associated with more class disruptions. Most low■disruption
points cluster at 30 min (early).

Assembly Time vs Student Focus

Focus scores tend to fall as assemblies move later into the morning. Mean markers show the highest focus after
early assemblies.
6. Evaluation and Recommendations
6.1 Relevance to Statement of Intent
The data collected across 3 weeks confirm that assembly timing influences teaching quality. A strong positive
relationship (r = 0.88) exists between assembly time and number of disruptions. Early assemblies consistently show
lower disruptions and higher student focus, fulfilling the project goal of identifying an optimal time.

6.2 Challenges Encountered

• Teacher reporting styles differed; required a shared definition of 'disruption'.

• Focus scores were subjective; used class averages to smooth variation.

• Weather and exam revision days may have affected attention.

• Limited to 3 weeks; longer-term data recommended.

6.3 Recommendations
• Adopt an early assembly (≈7:30, 30 min from start) on days when assembly is required.

• Limit assembly length to 10–15 minutes to protect lesson time.

• Use notice boards / messaging for minor or routine announcements.

• Monitor disruptions termly to confirm continued benefit.

• If a mid■morning assembly is unavoidable, schedule it before a natural break and shorten affected lessons.

End of Report.