Results are presented from a mixed-method investigation into the effects of Block Schedule on student self-efficacy, attitude, and instructional practices within the context of mathematics. Students exposed to block schedule showed no change in attitude toward mathematics, whereas those on a traditional schedule demonstrated a significant decrease. Students on block schedule also made significantly greater gains in self-efficacy. If reformed teacher practice is a goal of transitioning to block schedule, results point to a critical need for professional development.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
2.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
3.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
4.
Estacion, A., McMahon, T., Quint, J., Melamud, B., & Stephens, L. (2004). Conducting classroom observations in first things first schools [Working paper]. New York: MDRC.
5.
Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling: An evaluation of outcomes and impact. The Clearing House, July/August, 319-323.
6.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J.A. (1976a). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males (Ms. No. 1225). JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 31.
7.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J.A. (1976b). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes towards the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7, 324-326.
8.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002). Understanding and evaluating qualitative research . Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 717-732.
9.
Griffin, L.L., & Nicholson, J.W. (2002). An evaluation of the blocks: Schedule in two high schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN.
10.
Gullatt, D.E. (2006). Block scheduling: The effects on curriculum and student productivity. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 90, 250-266.
11.
Hackman, D.G. (2004). Constructivism and block scheduling: Making the connection. Phi Delta Kappa, May, 697-702.
12.
Hughes, W.W. (2004). Blocking student performance in high school? Economics of Education Review, 23, 663-667.
13.
Hurley, J.C. (1997). The 4 × 4 block scheduling model: What do students have to say about it? National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 81, 53-64.
14.
Kennett, D.J., & Keefer, K. (2006). Impact of learned resourcefulness and theories of intelligence on academic achievement of university students: An integrated approach. Educational Psychology, 26, 441-457.
15.
Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermenuetical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14, 171-196.
16.
Liu, J., & Dye, J.F. (1998). Teacher and student attitudes towards block scheduling in a rural school district. American Secondary Education, 26, 1-7.
17.
Nichols, J.D. (2005). Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and language arts. Journal of Educational Research , 98, 299-309.
18.
Payne, D.A., & Jordan, M.M. (1996). The evaluation of a high school block schedule: Convergence of teacher and student data. American Secondary Education, 25, 16-19.
19.
Rice, J.K., Croniger, R.G., & Roellke, C.F. (2002). The effect of block scheduling high school mathematics courses on student achievement and teachers' use of time: Implications for educational productivity. Economics of Education Review, 21, 599-607.
20.
Salvaterra, M.E., Lare, D., Gnall, J., & Adams, D.C. (1999). Block scheduling: Students' perceptions of readiness for college math, science, and foreign language. American Secondary Education, 27, 13-21.
21.
Trenta, L., & Newman, I. (2002). Effects of a high school block scheduling program on students: A four year longitudinal study of the effects of block scheduling on student outcome variables. American Secondary Education , 31, 54-71.
22.
Wilson, J.W., & Stokes, L.C. (2000). Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of block versus traditional scheduling. American Secondary Education , 28, 3-12.
23.
Wronkovich, M. (1998). Block scheduling: real reform or another flawed educational fad? American Secondary Education, 26, 1-6.
24.
Zepeda, S.J., & Mayer, R.S. (2006). An analysis of research on block scheduling. Review of Educational Research, 76, 137-170.
