Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04

8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04

1/9

Block Schedules vs.

Traditional Schedules

And Their Effects On

Science Achievement,Inquiry Skills and Attitudes

Regarding Science

Debbie Murphy

Evaluating Research

Fall 2004


2/9

Introduction

Our job as educators is to teachstudents how to learn.

We need to provide studentswith opportunities to use theircognitive processes.

Does the block schedule offerstudents greater opportunitiesthan the traditional schedule?


3/9

History of the Block

Schedule

1994 National Commission onTime and Learning proposedthat the school day needed to

move its focus from schedulingof time to learning.

The report recommendedimplementing block schedules togive teachers more time toengage students in activitybased learning opportunities.


4/9

Benefits of the

Block Schedule

Relieves the fast-paced,pressurized atmosphere

Provides opportunities for in-depthlearning (inquiry, research,cooperative learning, etc.)

Reduces daily administrative tasks

Offers teachers and studentsinnovative ways to interact andaccomplish their objectives


5/9

Current Research on

Achievement Test Scores

Despite the popularity of theblock schedule, researchfindings are mixed in regard to

achievement test comparisons.

The problem with standardizedtests is that they focus more on

content than processes.


6/9

Theres More To Science

Than Achievement Tests!

According to the National ScienceEducation Standards, inquiry iscentral to science learning.

Highly effective teaching strategiesrequire higher level thinking skillssuch as inquiry, cooperativelearning, exploration, analysis andsynthesis.

A 90 minutes class schedule givesteachers time to provide

opportunities for in-depth learning.


7/9

Why Would Schools

Abandon the Block?

Budgetary concerns

Poor preparation and ongoingtraining for teaching in the block

Lack of variety - for a blockschedule to be successful,teachers must use a widevariety of instructional strategies

Poor utilization of the block time


8/9

Research Plans

Compare the amount of inquiryactivities in block and traditionalschedules

Compare the attitudes of students

toward science in block and traditionalschedules

Compare test scores in block andtraditional schedules

Determine if lack of ongoing training ininstructional strategies was a factor inthe abandonment of the blockschedule


9/9

References Arnold, D.E. (2002). Block schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison.

NASSP Bulletin, 86(630), 42-53. Bottge, B.J., Gugerty, J.J., Serlin, R., & Moon, K. (2003). Block and traditional schedules:

Effects on students with and without disabilities in high school. NAASP Bulletin,87(636), 2-14.

Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools.Gardiner, New York: Eye on Education.

DiBiase, W.J., & Queen, J.A. (1999). Middle school social studies on the block. The ClearingHouse, 72(6), 377-384.

Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling: An evaluation ofoutcomes and impact. The Clearing House, 75(6), 319-323.

Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002). To block or not to block: Thats not the

question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 196-202. Lawrence, W.W., & MacPherson, D.D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and

traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of InstructionalPsychology, 27(3), 178-182.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Pursuingexcellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and scienceachievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. (NCES Publication No. 2001-028). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Rettig, M.D., & Canady, R.L. (2003). Block schedulings missteps, successes and variables.School Administrator, 60(9), 26-31.

Shortt, T.L., & Thayer, Y.V. (1999). Block scheduling can enhance school climate.Educational Leadership, 56(4), 76-81.

Veal, W.R. (1999). What could define block scheduling as a fad? American SecondaryEducation, 27(4), 3-12.

Veal, W.R., & Schreiber, J. (1999, September 19). Block scheduling effects on a statemandated test of basic skills. Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 7(29). RetrievedOctober 11, 2004, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.html

Viadero, D. (2001). Despite its popularity, block schedulings effect on learning remainsunproven. Education Week, 21(5), 38-40.
http://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.htmlhttp://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.htmlhttp://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.htmlhttp://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.html

Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04

Documents

Transcript of Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04