This study investigates differences in eighth-grade mathematics students' engagement in standards-based curriculum and instruction practices between blockand traditional-schedule schools. Survey data were gathered from 156 middle level mathematics teachers to access the use of standards-based curriculum and instruction practices in their classrooms. Results indicate there are few differences in curriculum and instruction based on the type of school schedule.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, D. C., & Salvaterra, M. E. (1997). Structural and teacher changes: Necessities for successful block scheduling. High SchoolJournal, 81, 98-105.
2.
Banbury, J. A. (1998). An analysis of changes in teacher instructional practices under block scheduling in seven suburban high schools. (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(03).
3.
Bexell, D. D. (1998). The effects of class period length on the number, variety, and interaction level of instructional strategies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(08).
4.
Bush, M. J., & Johnstone, W. G. (2000, April). An observation evaluation of high school A/B block classes: Variety of monotony? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
5.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalystfor change in high schools. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
6.
Canady, R. L., & Rettig, M. D. (Eds.). (1996). Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education.
7.
Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (1995). Report study of the fourperiod schedule for Anoka-Henepin District No. 11. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Available: www.education.umn.edu/CAREI/
8.
Hart, W. H. (2000). A comparison of the use of instructional time in block scheduled and traditionally scheduled high school classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08).
9.
Hartzell, L. M. (1999). The implementation and impact of block scheduling at one high school. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08).
10.
Khazzaka, J. (1997-1998). Comparing the merits of a seven-period school day to those of the four-period school day. The High SchoolJournal, 81(2), 87-97.
11.
Kramer, S. L. (1997). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, Part I. NASSP Bulletin, 81(586), 18-42.
12.
Lawrenz, F., & Huffman, D. (2002). State systemic initiative impact study: Final report. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. Available: www.education.umn.edu/CAREI/
13.
National Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14.
Marshak, D. (1997). Action research on block scheduling. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
17.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1), 107 Cong., 110 (2002) (enacted).
18.
O'Neil, J. (1995). Finding time. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 11-15.
19.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 125-129.
20.
Queen, J. A. (2002). To block or not to block: That's not the question. Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 196-202.
21.
Queen,J. A., & Isenhour, K G. (1998). 4 x 4 block schedule. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
22.
Staunton, J. T. (1997). A study of teacher beliefs on the efficacy of block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 73-80.
