All Around the Block

School Administrator, Sept, 1996 by Michael D. Rettig, Robert Lynn Canady

By the second fall semester, the summer lapse from school appears to equalize the students who, for example, completed Algebra I during the previous fall or spring semesters.

The major issue of retention appears to be related to depth of learning. In other words, how well did the students ever learn the material? If the focus remains on surface learning and low-level recall, then the recency of exposure is critical!

In addition, research in cognitive psychology may be applied to this issue. One study, reported in the June 1993 issue of Journal of Educational Psychology, discovered that students retained 85 percent of major concepts they originally had learned after four months and 80 percent after 11 months. This slight additional decline in retention may be worth other benefits of the 4/4 semester plan.

Providing Guidance

* Covering the same amount of material.

An important phase of the planning process for the 4/4 plan is the development of course-pacing guides, which prescribe a timetable for completing course objectives. We find most teachers enjoy the 4/4 schedule after two years of teaching in the block. However, some report, "I covered less, but the students learned what I did teach in greater depth," while others admit, "I never taught so much in my life."

Critics of block scheduling, particularly the 4/4 plan, argue that curriculum is being "dumbed down" because less time is being spent per course. The time issue is relevant depending on what the school is moving from. Less time per class is provided when a change is made from a six- or seven-period schedule in which courses last for 180 days of 50-minute periods to a schedule where courses receive 90 days of 90-minute blocks. This issue does not arise when eight-period schools switch to the 4/4 as teaching time per course in the 4/4 plan generally increases in those schools.

Opponents of block scheduling have difficulty accepting the idea of "less is more." We contend less material or concepts covered well may result in more meaningful learning. Several Canadian studies, which compared students' science and math achievement, suggest that students learn somewhat less in semesterized courses as measured by multiple-choice tests (see resource list, page 12). Other research has suggested no significant differences between students' achievement in intensive block schedules and yearlong courses.

Currently, the greatest support for block scheduling appears to be related to the overall improvement in school climate and the quality of the school day for both students and teachers. Less abundant are hard data relative to the effect of block scheduling on student achievement. Such data are more difficult to obtain because a certain amount of time must pass before data can be collected and because it is almost impossible to control adequately the many variables related to student achievement. Continuing study and scholarly debate are necessary to answer this important question.

In studying this issue, it is important to remember that students in most schools have opportunities to take four or more additional courses in high school compared to the six-period daily schedule. Suppose the math class covers two less chapters, but the students complete another semester math class. Or consider the impact of reading one less novel in the traditional English class, but offering students an additional semester in a speech or technical writing class.