Alternative scheduling at the high school level has opened the doors to debate about the current time management structure. The traditional 20th century model of high school education may prove to be inadequate to meet the challenges of the next century, so the possibility of alternative styles of time management at this level is refreshing. But changing time management will not resolve problems unless it is tied to some type of curricular reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association (AERA). 1992. Encyclopedia of educational research, 6th ed.New York: Macmillan.
2.
Anderson, L. W., and H. J. Walberg. 1993. Timepiece: Extending and enhancing learning time. Reston, Va.: NASSP.
3.
Bateson, D. J.1990. Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching3: 233-240.
4.
Carroll, J. M.1994. The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Topsfield, Mass.: Copernican Associates.
5.
The College Board. 1996. Guidance, access and assessment services-AP and January examination. September 19, 1996.
6.
Edwards, C.1993. The four-period day: Restructuring to improve student performance. NASSP Bulletin, May.
7.
Gay, L. R.1981. Educational research: For analysis and application. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.
8.
Lockwood, S.1995. Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact of student achievement in algebra and geometry. NASSP Bulletin, December.
9.
McNeil, K.; F. J. Kelly; and J. McNeil. 1975. Testing research hypotheses using multiple linear regression. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
10.
Raphael, D.; M. Wahlstrom; and L. D. McLean. 1986. Debunking the semestering myth. Canadian Journal of Education1: 36-52.
11.
Raphael, D., and M. Wahlstrom, M.1986. The semester school and student achievement: Results from the second Ontario international science study. Canadian Journal of Education2: 180-183.
12.
Rose, M.1995. Possible lives: The promise of public education. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
13.
Semb, G. B.; J. A. Ellis; and J. Araujo. 1993. Long-term memory for knowledge learned in school. Journal of Educational Psychology2: 305-316.
14.
Sharman, R.1990. Student dropout and scheduling patterns in secondary schools: An exploratory study. Alberta Journal of Educational Research36: 325-336.
15.
Stamos, C. T.1996. The case against intensive block scheduling. Fair Oaks Guardian, November 7.
16.
Wronkovich, M.; C. Hess; and J. Robinson. 1997. An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, December.