Far from a failed experiment in time management, block scheduling is being adapted in various ways by schools nationwide to suit students’ needs. This article reviews research on scheduling effects and discusses how instructional leaders have approached the issue to analyze the benefits and problems of the various scheduling formats.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateson, D. J.1990. Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research in Science Education27 (3): 233-240.
2.
Blaz, D.1998. Teaching foreign languages in the block. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
3.
Canady, R. L., and M. D. Rettig. 1995. Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
4.
Canady, R. L., and M. D. Rettig., eds. 1996. Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
5.
Canady, R. L., and M. D. Rettig. 2000. Block scheduling: What we have learned. In Research review for school leaders, Vol. 3, edited by W. G. Wraga and P. S. Hlebowitsh. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
6.
Gilkey, S. N., and C. H. Hunt. 1998. Teaching mathematics in the block. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
7.
Gore, G. R.1996. Provincial exam results and timetables. Catalyst39 (3): 3-5.
8.
Kramer, S. L.1997. What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction: Part II. NASSP Bulletin81 (587): 69-82.
9.
Marzano, R. J., D. J. Pickering, and J. E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. 1997. 1997 blocked scheduling end-of-course test scores evaluation brief. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services. Available: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/block_scheduling/1997_eoc_brief/
11.
Pliska, A., M. T. Harmston, and D. G. Hackmann. 2001. The relationship between secondary school scheduling models and ACT assessment scores. NASSP Bulletin85 (625): 42-55.
12.
Raphael, D., M. W. Wahlstrom, and L. D. McLean. 1986. Debunking the semestering myth. Canadian Journal of Education11 (1): 36-52.
13.
Rettig, M. D. 2001. Directory of high school scheduling models in Virginia: 1994-1995, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-2002 school years. A report of the study of innovative high school scheduling in Virginia. Harrisonburg, Va.: James Madison University. Available: http://cep.jmu.edu/EdLeadership/index2.htm.
14.
Rettig, M. D., and R. L. Canady. 1998. High failure rates in required mathematics courses: Can a modified block schedule be part of the cure?NASSP Bulletin82 (596): 56-65.
15.
Rettig, M. D., and R. L. Canady. 2000. Scheduling strategies for middle schools. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
16.
Strzepek, J. E., J. Newton, and L. D. Walker. 2000. Teaching English in the block. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education.
17.
Thomas, C.2001. What is wrong with block scheduling?NASSP Bulletin, 85 (628): 74-77.
