Block Scheduling: Is It Cost-Effective?

Lare, Douglas; Jablonski, Ann M.; Salvaterra, Mary

doi:10.1177/019263650208663007

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Duel (1999), using a nonequivalent, pretest-posttest design, concluded that block scheduling had no significant effect on standardized test or AP exam scores. Based on a chi-squared analysis and descriptive statistics, Lare et al (2002) reported that block scheduling had no significant effect on AP or ACT exam scores. In contrast to the impact on standardized test scores, Snyder (1997) concluded that AP scores dropped slightly after the implementation of a block schedule.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The settings included Florida (Duel, 1999;Hamdy & Urich, 1998), Georgia (Payne & Jordan, 1996), Indiana (Snyder, 1997), Missouri (Limback, 1998;Stader, 2001), New Jersey (Evans et al, 2002), North Carolina (Queen et al, 1997), Tennessee (Fletcher, 1997), and Virginia (Pisapia & Westfall, 1997a, 1997b. Other studies offered only general geographic descriptions of the setting such as the Midwest (Weller & McLeskey, 2000), the Southwest (Knight et al, 1999) or the West (Lare et al, 2002).…”

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Knight, De Leon, and Smith (1999), AP (advanced placement) examination scores dropped after a block schedule was implemented; and Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999) reported that standardized test scores of students on a block schedule dropped significantly. However, Lare, Jablonski, and Salvaterra (2002) reported that academic achievement remained constant after implementation of a block schedule. Fletcher (1997) and Pisapia and Westfall (1997b) concluded that block scheduling had no effect on attendance, and Hamdy and Urich (1998) reported that classroom management was more stressful in a block schedule.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An Analysis of Research on Block Scheduling

Zepeda¹,

Mayers

2006

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this analysis of 58 empirical studies of high school block scheduling, the authors report findings in and across five groupings. Within groups, data were inconsistent regarding whether teachers' practices changed, but teachers believed that staff development was necessary to teach in a block schedule. Block scheduling appeared to increase student grade point averages and improve school climate, but the results regarding its effects on standardized test scores and attendance were inconsistent. Across studies, the findings indicated that (a) research studies omit key information; (b) teachers and students may view block scheduling positively (but their reasons are unknown); and (c) changes in teachers' practices are inconsistent. Many studies reported data that were collected over short periods of time. The authors of this analysis offer generalizations about block scheduling research, recommendations for further research, and a discussion of implementation issues. KEYWORDS: block scheduling, high school reform, high school scheduling patterns.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. The National Education Commission on Time and Learning (1994) described the traditional 6-hour schedule as the "unacknowledged design flaw in American education" (p. 2). Block scheduling emerged as a way to modify the traditional 6-hour day for high school students.Although there are variations, block schedules include the 4 × 4, in which the school day is divided into four roughly equivalent blocks of time, usually 80 to 90 minutes each. Following a university model, students in a 4 × 4 schedule begin new courses twice a year. Another variation is the trimester schedule, in which the year is divided into three terms instead of two as in the 4 × 4 block schedule. In the alternating block, also called the A/B block, students meet every other day throughout the school year and typically enroll in six to eight classes, each lasting between 70 and 90 minutes.The Copernican Plan has two main configurations, each combining block periods of differing lengths during the day. In the first configuration, students enroll in one 4-hour macro-class each day (typically a core course such as algebra or English) and then in two or three shorter classes lasting between 70 and 90 minutes each. Approximately every 30 days, students receive a new schedule. In the second configuration of the Copernican Plan, students enroll in two classes lasting approximately

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Analysis of Research on Block Scheduling

Zepeda¹,

Mayers

2006

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Typically, traditional middle school and high school schedules are six to seven periods per day with each period lasting between 45 and 55 min. From an organizational standpoint, this format is the most efficient design as it allows for the easy arrangement of courses, advisories, teacher planning periods, and other school-wide courses and requires fewer teachers than block or flexible schedules [69]. However, the traditional schedule format is rigid.…”

Section: Structures Of Timementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linking scheduling formats to student achievement is very complex as so many factors interact with student learning, including teacher content knowledge and pedagogy [66,74]. Additionally, few studies exist on the ways in which scheduling formats are developmentally responsive to the academic learning needs of young adolescents (e.g., [69,75,76]).…”

Section: Structures Of Timementioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Middle School Organizational Structures in the United States and Australia

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The middle school concept, aimed at creating a more developmentally responsive learning environment for young adolescents, gained a stronghold in the later part of the 20th century. Proponents of this concept have argued continually for the holistic implementation of its six key characteristics if its benefits are to be realized. These characteristics include: (a) a challenging, integrative, and exploratory curriculum; (b) varied teaching and learning approaches; (c) assessment and evaluation that promote learning; (d) flexible organizational structures (i.e., including the physical space, scheduling, and grouping of students and teachers); (e) programs and policies that foster health, wellness and safety; and (f) comprehensive guidance and support services. Recently, Ellerbrock, Falbe, and Pomykal Franz identified key middle school organizational structures of people, place, and time as being interconnected and integral to effective middle school practices. Main also demonstrated the interconnected nature of these key characteristics and how organizational structures of people affected the successful implementation of other characteristics. Thus, how these organizational structures can and are being implemented has implications for our understanding of the effectiveness of other middle school practices. In this paper, researchers from both the United States and Australia examine and compare literature published between 2000 and 2018 addressing ways in which middle school/middle years organizational structures have been reported and categorized by structures of people, place, and time in these two countries. Pertinent literature related to organizational structures of middle schools in the United States and to middle years education in Australia was examined. Findings from studies and evaluations from each country are reported to provide an international perspective on the organizational structures of middle schools/middle years education across the two countries. Overall, since 2000, the body of knowledge about middle schools/middle years organizational structures has been surprisingly limited in comparison to their perceived importance in the field. This lack of research is concerning in the midst of educational reform in both countries, resulting in questions about the impact of school organizational structures on young adolescent development and learning.

show abstract

Empirical Support for Establishing Common Assumptions in Cost Research in Education

Shand

Bowden

2021

Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Block Scheduling: Is It Cost-Effective?

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

An Analysis of Research on Block Scheduling

An Analysis of Research on Block Scheduling

An Examination of Middle School Organizational Structures in the United States and Australia

Empirical Support for Establishing Common Assumptions in Cost Research in Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About