Block Scheduling: Real Reform or Another Flawed Educational Fad?.
Michael Wronkovich · American secondary education · 1998
Introduction The growth of alternative scheduling modeled on the format in the last decade has made it the educational fad of the 1990's. The question is whether the movement represents real reform or another shallow fad, here today and gone tomorrow. Block scheduling has not been an evolutionary, incremental change in many of the schools in which it has been implemented; but rather, it has been a dramatic change that has the potential to be divisive for both staff and students. Change of any significance is often that way. But, being comfortable in our old ways may be just as damaging as reckless change. The goal of this article is to examine some of the evidence presented for and against block scheduling and to make recommendations based on these observations. The decision whether or not to adopt block scheduling should be based on the examination of current research. Schools should establish measurable goals and set a timetable for evaluating the outcomes of block scheduling. For purposes of definition in this article, block scheduling will refer to the model advocated by Joseph Carroll (1990), which he called the Copernican model. This style of alternative scheduling advocates blocking similar to the Canadian model of semesters. In the Copernican model, students attend classes for twice as many minutes each day per semester in order to have equivalent minutes of the year long, or traditional course. In other words, a student who is required to attend a class on the traditional model for 45 minutes per day for 180 days would be in class for 135 clock hours. Under the Copernican model, students would attend class for 90 minutes per day for 90 days to achieve the same time equivalency. In theory, students would receive the same instruction. The Copernican block is by no means the only style of alternative scheduling that is being tried in American and Canadian schools. It has only been recently that any significant quantitative and qualitative research began appearing in various journals. Other models such as the three-by-three, the A/B block, and certain hybrid blocks are being tried and reported in various journals as well. Since the majority of research presently available refers to the Copernican block, it is the easiest to evaluate. Lessons from Educational Psychology Regarding Block Scheduling In order to make a responsible decision about the effectiveness of alternative scheduling in any particular educational setting, it behooves the responsible administrator to ask questions regarding the effects that the change will have on learning. One of the disconcerting trends that this researcher has noted is the exact opposite of that maxim. Often, schools start with the concept of changing to blocking, then try to assess what outcomes are being observed from the change. It would be preferable to ask first what changes the school is seeking to make collectively, then to assess if alternative scheduling is one means for accomplishing these goals. Block scheduling makes fundamental changes to the manner in which curriculum is available to students. The principles of distributive learning and educational sequencing tell us that timed, spaced practices are important to mastery of a concept. Applying these principles to block scheduling seems to be key to successful outcomes. For example, avoiding semester or year-long gaps in math and foreign language is achieved by careful sequencing. It allows for the benefits of block scheduling while overcoming one possible negative consequence. Opponents of the four-by-four block model contend that the principles of distributive learning are often ignored by schools implementing blocking. It is widely accepted that spaced, evenly distributed practice sessions are superior to massed practice sessions. This principle has been shown in a variety of responsible research studies. Notable among these is the research of L.W. Anderson and H. …