Block Schedules vs.
Traditional Schedules
And Their Effects On
Science Achievement,
Inquiry Skills and Attitudes
Regarding Science
Debbie Murphy
Evaluating Research
Fall 2004
Introduction



Our job as educators is to teach
students how to learn.
We need to provide students
with opportunities to use their
cognitive processes.
Does the block schedule offer
students greater opportunities
than the traditional schedule?
History of the Block
Schedule


1994 National Commission on
Time and Learning proposed
that the school day needed to
move its focus from scheduling
of time to learning.
The report recommended
implementing block schedules to
give teachers more time to
engage students in activity
based learning opportunities.
Benefits of the
Block Schedule




Relieves the fast-paced,
pressurized atmosphere
Provides opportunities for in-depth
learning (inquiry, research,
cooperative learning, etc.)
Reduces daily administrative tasks
Offers teachers and students
innovative ways to interact and
accomplish their objectives
Current Research on
Achievement Test Scores


Despite the popularity of the
block schedule, research
findings are mixed in regard to
achievement test comparisons.
The problem with standardized
tests is that they focus more on
content than processes.
There’s More To Science
Than Achievement Tests!



According to the National Science
Education Standards, inquiry is
central to science learning.
Highly effective teaching strategies
require higher level thinking skills
such as inquiry, cooperative
learning, exploration, analysis and
synthesis.
A 90 minutes class schedule gives
teachers time to provide
opportunities for in-depth learning.
Why Would Schools
Abandon the Block?




Budgetary concerns
Poor preparation and ongoing
training for teaching in the block
Lack of variety - for a block
schedule to be successful,
teachers must use a wide
variety of instructional strategies
Poor utilization of the block time
Research Plans




Compare the amount of inquiry
activities in block and traditional
schedules
Compare the attitudes of students
toward science in block and traditional
schedules
Compare test scores in block and
traditional schedules
Determine if lack of ongoing training in
instructional strategies was a factor in
the abandonment of the block
schedule
References
















Arnold, D.E. (2002). Block schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison.
NASSP Bulletin, 86(630), 42-53.
Bottge, B.J., Gugerty, J.J., Serlin, R., & Moon, K. (2003). Block and traditional schedules:
Effects on students with and without disabilities in high school. NAASP Bulletin,
87(636), 2-14.
Canady, R., & Rettig, M. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high schools.
Gardiner, New York: Eye on Education.
DiBiase, W.J., & Queen, J.A. (1999). Middle school social studies on the block. The Clearing
House, 72(6), 377-384.
Evans, W., Tokarczyk, J., Rice, S., & McCray, A. (2002). Block scheduling: An evaluation of
outcomes and impact. The Clearing House, 75(6), 319-323.
Eisner, E. (1985). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan
Jenkins, E., Queen, A., & Algozzine, B. (2002). To block or not to block: That’s not the
question. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 196-202.
Lawrence, W.W., & MacPherson, D.D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and
traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 27(3), 178-182.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Pursuing
excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science
achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. (NCES Publication No. 2001028). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Time and Learning (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Rettig, M.D., & Canady, R.L. (2003). Block scheduling’s missteps, successes and variables.
School Administrator, 60(9), 26-31.
Shortt, T.L., & Thayer, Y.V. (1999). Block scheduling can enhance school climate.
Educational Leadership, 56(4), 76-81.
Veal, W.R. (1999). What could define block scheduling as a fad? American Secondary
Education, 27(4), 3-12.
Veal, W.R., & Schreiber, J. (1999, September 19). Block scheduling effects on a state
mandated test of basic skills. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(29). Retrieved
October 11, 2004, from http://epaa.asu/epaa/v7n29.html
Viadero, D. (2001). Despite its popularity, block scheduling’s effect on learning remains
unproven. Education Week, 21(5), 38-40.