NO RESEARCH SUPPORTING BLOCK SCHEDULING, ONLY DATA AVAILABLE SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS WORSE. \doc\web\97\09\bsbad.txt >From: Quentin49@aol.com >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:35:19 -0500 (EST) >To: education-consumers@tricon.net >Subject: Block Scheduling Motivations >Sender: owner-education-consumers@tricon.net >Precedence: bulk > >I exchanged the following information on BS with Bonnie Grossen. I thought >the other loopies might want to see it. I am a parent in ISD 535, Rochester, >Mn. > >At 11:07 AM 11/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Our district is now adopting block scheduling in the high school area. >>Ostensibly this is to save costs and offer students more class >opportunities, >>but the literature I have read on BS seems to convey a different message. > It >>would appear that the main reason for doing BS is to provide larger blocks >of >>classroom time for "alternative" learning activities such as cooperative >>learning, peer tutoring and group activities. While I know there are some >>things that can be done in this type of setting that work well I also know >it >>should not be used exclusively as a learning strategy. >> >>In Project FT you studied how these types of unstructured learning methods >>worked on elementary students. The results were not very encouraging. Are >>there any studies that you are aware of which have compared these teaching >>strategies in different subject areas in an empirically valid manner at the >>high school level? Almost all of the information I have collected on BS is >>anecdotal in nature and did not use any form of outside objective >measurement >>(unless you count some cases of SAT and ACT comparisons). I guess the lack >>of any firm data on BS makes me very leery of it and the actual academic >>motivations behind it. I can see that changing the schedule makes some >areas >>such as math and science more difficult to do well, but may actually enhance >>art, literature and history. However, it appears the people marketing this >>(and it does appear to be a very small group headed by Joseph Carroll) have >a >>much different agenda than just time management. I would be most >>appreciative of any information you might have. It might be worth putting >on >>the loop as well. Thanks in advance. >> > > >In spite of the popularity of block scheduling, there are no data I know of >evaluating it. Ellis and Fouts, in their review of the research supporting >current "buzz" word practices, also said there was no research supporting >block scheduling, (but they thought it was something that did not require >empirical investigation). You are right in everything you say below and >the reason block scheduling is so heavily promoted is to push teachers >toward more constructivist teaching practices (projects). I know from a >study we did that the lower performing students did much more poorly in a >block scheduled school than in a school with a daily schedule. It took >almost twice as much learning time and the year ended before the goals were >achieved to the same level of mastery that they were in the school with a >daily schedule. The critical thing to be aware of in block schedules is >whether the kids get daily contact with the same material. Otherwise it's >like having a weekend between every class.... You have to constantly >reteach everything. > >Bonnie Grossen, Ph.D. >University of Oregon >webpage http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/ >805 Lincoln >Eugene, OR 97401 >Phone and Fax: 541-683-7543 >EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE