Block Scheduling
UNION UNIVERSITY
THE IMPACT OF BLOCK SCHEDULING VERSUS TRADITIONAL SCHEDULING ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
SUBITTED TO DR. BENNY TUCKER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
EDU 675 CAPSTONE RESEARCH SEMINAR
BY
LELA BINGHAM
MAY 9, 2012
Chapter 1
Introduction
As administrators and educators have researched ways to use time more productively, major changes have been occurring in high school schedules. Within the context of education reform, one of the attributes of the traditional educational system that has been a focus for systemic change has been the use of time (Trenta & Newman, 2002). In Nichols’ (2005) research, it’s noted that one of the most important concerns expressed in A Nation at Risk report was related to how effectively classroom instruction time was being utilized in America’s schools. Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice & McCray (2002) indicated that this report offered many recommendations for school reform initiatives, including restructuring for more effective use of school time and increased concentration on core academic subjects. According to Lawrence and McPherson (2000), administrators and teachers in America have been criticized regarding the poor use of school time since the 1980’s (p. 178).
Maltese, Dexter, Tai, and Sadler (2007) found that approximately 66.7% of high school graduates from the class of 2004 enrolled in colleges or universities, the importance of high school as a means to prepare students for a successful college experience is essential (p. 1). According to Zepeda and Mayers (2006), “as the accountability bar rises, schools continue to explore avenues for increasing student achievement, and school leaders have examined new teaching methods, emerging technologies, and alternate scheduling patterns to improve the teaching and learning processes” (p.137).
Nichols (2005) states that in response to A Nation at Risk report, many concerned educators and community leaders
THE IMPACT OF BLOCK SCHEDULING VERSUS TRADITIONAL SCHEDULING ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
SUBITTED TO DR. BENNY TUCKER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
EDU 675 CAPSTONE RESEARCH SEMINAR
BY
LELA BINGHAM
MAY 9, 2012
Chapter 1
Introduction
As administrators and educators have researched ways to use time more productively, major changes have been occurring in high school schedules. Within the context of education reform, one of the attributes of the traditional educational system that has been a focus for systemic change has been the use of time (Trenta & Newman, 2002). In Nichols’ (2005) research, it’s noted that one of the most important concerns expressed in A Nation at Risk report was related to how effectively classroom instruction time was being utilized in America’s schools. Evans, Tokarczyk, Rice & McCray (2002) indicated that this report offered many recommendations for school reform initiatives, including restructuring for more effective use of school time and increased concentration on core academic subjects. According to Lawrence and McPherson (2000), administrators and teachers in America have been criticized regarding the poor use of school time since the 1980’s (p. 178).
Maltese, Dexter, Tai, and Sadler (2007) found that approximately 66.7% of high school graduates from the class of 2004 enrolled in colleges or universities, the importance of high school as a means to prepare students for a successful college experience is essential (p. 1). According to Zepeda and Mayers (2006), “as the accountability bar rises, schools continue to explore avenues for increasing student achievement, and school leaders have examined new teaching methods, emerging technologies, and alternate scheduling patterns to improve the teaching and learning processes” (p.137).
Nichols (2005) states that in response to A Nation at Risk report, many concerned educators and community leaders
References: Bryant, C. & Bryant R. (2000).Social studies in the block schedule: A model for effective lesson design. The Social Studies, 9-16. Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M. D. (2001). Block scheduling: The key to quality learning time. Principal, 80(3), 30-34. Carroll, J. M. (1994).The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2), 104-113. Childers, G. L. & Ireland R. W. (2005). Mixing block and traditional scheduling. The Education Digest, 6, 43-49. Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling: An evaluation of outcomes and impact. The Clearing House, 75(6), 319-323. Gruber, C. D. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). Effects of block scheduling on academic achievement among high school students Hackmann, D. G. (2004). Constructivism and block scheduling: Making the connection. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 697-702. Hynes-Hunter, J. M. & Avery, S. (2007). Block scheduling in secondary physical education: East compared to West Coast Unite States of America. The Physical Educator, 64(4), 170-179. Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002).To block or not to block: That’s not the question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 196-202. Kenney, L. C. (2003). Back from the block—or not? School Administrator, 60(9). Kienholz, K., Segall, N. & Yellin, D. (2003). The block: Implications for secondary teachers. Kappa Delta Pi, 39(2), 62-65. Lawrence, W. W. & McPherson, D. D. (2000).A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(3), 178-182. Lewis, C. W., Dugan, J. J., Winokur, M. A., & Cobb, R. B. (2005). The effects of block scheduling on high school academic achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 72-87. Maltese, V. A., Dexter, K. M., Tai, R. H., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Breaking from tradition: Unfulfilled promises of block scheduling in science. Science Educator, 16(1), 1-7. Marchant, G. J. & Paulson, S. B. (2001). Differential school functioning in a block schedule: A comparison of academic profiles. High School Journal, 84(4), 12-20. Mowen, G. G. & Mowen, C. (2004). To block-schedule or not? Education Digest, 69(8), 50-53. Nichols, J. D. (2005). Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and language arts. The Journal of Education Research, 98(5), 299-309. Payne, D. A. & Jordan M. M. (1996). The evaluation of a high school block schedule. Convergence of teacher and student data. American Secondary Education, 25(2), 16-19. Persin, R. (2002). Web-assisted instruction in physics: An enhancement to block scheduling. American Secondary Education 30(3), 61-69. Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3), 214-222. Rettig, M. D. (1999). The effects of block scheduling. American Association of School Administrator. Rikard, G. L. & Banville, D. (2005). High school physical education teacher perceptions of block scheduling. The High School Journal, 26-34. Santos, K. E. & Rettig, M. D. (1999). Going on the block meeting the needs of students with disabilities in high schools with block scheduling. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(3), 54-59. Shortt, T. L. & Thayer, Y. V. (1999). Block scheduling can enhance school climate. Educational Leadership, 56(4), 76-81. Slate, J. R. & Jones, C. H. (2000). Students ' perspectives on block scheduling: Reactions following a brief trial period. The High School Journal, 83(3), 55-65. Trenta, L. & Newman, I. (2002). Effects of a high school block scheduling program on students: A four-year longitudinal study of the effects of block scheduling on student outcome variables. American Secondary Education,31(1), 54-64. Veal, W. R. & Flinders, D. J. (2001). How block scheduling reform effects classroom practice. High School Journal, 84(4), 21-31. Veldman, R. (2002). The best of both schedules. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.), 3(3), 36-38. Weller, D Zepeda, S. J. & Mayers, and R. S. (2001). New kids on the block schedule: Beginning teachers face challenges. The High School Journal, 84(4), 1-11. Zepeda, S. J. & Mayers, R. S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 137-170.