Upload
jericho-dela-fuentes
View
242
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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?
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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.
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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.
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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.
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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
8/4/2019 Block Schedules vs Traditional Schedules 04
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