Breaking from Tradition: Unfulfilled Promises of Block Scheduling in Science

Science Educator, Spring 2007 by Maltese, Adam V, Dexter, Kirsten M, Tai, Robert H, Sadler, Philip M

Using a national survey of more than 7,000 students from 128 different college introductory science courses, the authors compared students who experienced Block scheduling and Traditional scheduling in high school.

With 66.7 % of high school graduates from the class of 2004 enrolled in colleges or universities (United States Department of Labor, July 2005), the importance of high school as a means to prepare students for a successful college experience is evident. Educators and administrators strive to find a schedule that allows for greater retention, provides for adequate content coverage, and produces high academic achievement across all subject areas. Prisoners of Time and the No Child Left Behind initiative focused attention on educational topics like the intensity of class time and the restructuring of school days (NECTL, 1994). The National Science Education Standards (Teaching Standard D) state that "Teachers must:... Structure the time available so that students are able to engage in extended investigations" (NRC, 1996, p. 43). Having these goals in mind, many schools have shifted from Traditional scheduling systems to Block scheduling. In 1996 Rettig and Canady estimated that approximately 50% of American secondary schools were on some form of Block scheduling.

Much of the existing literature views the Block vs. Traditional scheduling issue as an "either/or" debate, with voices on both sides of the scheduling divide (Canady & Rettig, 1995; Lindsay, 2000). Kienholz, Segall, and Yellin (2003) commented thatBlock scheduling allowed students to learn material at a "more relaxed, less frenetic pace" (p. 64) and that it enhanced the "environment for learning for both teacher and students" (p. 65). The extended class periods and modified scheduling frameworks necessitate a change in instructional practice as teachers shift away from traditional 50 minute classes. Some argue that the Block format increases scheduling flexibility, and is more conducive to team teaching, multidisciplinary classes, labs, and fieldwork (Center for Education Reform, 1996). Queen (2000) discussed a number of methodologies including the use of case method, synectics, and concept attainment as well-suited to use within a Block schedule. Day, Ivanov, and Binkley (1996) reported the benefits of increased attendance, decreased failure rate, and an improved quality of instruction that came as a result of switching to a Block schedule. In terms of using the extended class period for science instruction, many articles have been published in science education journals focusing on creative lesson plans and time usage within a Block schedule (e.g. Barnes, Straton & Ukena, 1996; Bohince, 1996; Cooper, 1996; Craven, 2001; Day et al, 1996; Frank, 2002; Rapp, 1997).

On the opposite side of the scheduling debate, other studies reported that there was no evidence Block scheduling led to meaningful teaching innovations that resulted in higher student achievement (Center for Education Reform, 1996). In many cases, longer class periods meet fewer times per week, and the overall result is less total class time (Louden & Hounshell, 1998). The existing literature often cited continued use of instructional practices better suited for Traditional schedules and disuse of instructional practices better suited to Block-type schedules as reasons why Block scheduling plans have not produced improvement in student achievement (Hackmann & Schrnitt, 1997). Other important issues presented in the literature involved variations in the frequency of particular teaching formats used in different scheduling plans, and whether or not Block students were better prepared for future academic achievement than their peers in Traditional schedules (Knight, DeLeon, & Smith, 1999; Lawrence & McPherson, 2000).

In a study focusing on science courses taught at a high school using Traditional, Block, and Hybrid scheduling, Veal (2000) discovered that there were benefits and drawbacks to each of the scheduling models. He found that while teachers reported some of the benefits addressed in the research literature on Block scheduling, they also reported challenges and tradeoffs when attempting to improve classroom practice. He reported that classes meeting on a Block schedule had 22 % less in-class time than those in the Traditional schedule. This reduced class time led to an increased pace of instruction in the Block classes and caused frequent use of lectures to cover material in a more efficient manner. These results beg the question of how this quickened pace affects students of varied ability levels.

Only a few large-scale studies have published research regarding the effects of scheduling format. Rice, Croninger, and Roellke (2002) presented evidence from an analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study: 1988 (NELS: 1988) data. They looked at the effect of block scheduling on math achievement and found that students taking part in Block scheduled courses performed below those in traditional classes. Jenkins, Queen, and Algozzine (2002) conducted a study involving 2,167 high school teachers in North Carolina. The authors concluded that the teachers in their survey did not use different instructional methods based on whether they were in Traditional or Block schedules. Nichols (2005) completed a longitudinal study focusing on English and Language Arts in schools within a single district that were changing over from Traditional scheduling to a Block format. The author reported only a slight overall increase for student achievement after conversion of these schools to a Block schedule. The largest study, conducted by Deuel (1999), investigated the implementation of a Block schedule at schools in an urban school district collecting data before and after the change. Deuel concluded that student achievement increased with the introduction of Block scheduling; however, the author noted that there were not any differences between the percentages of students passing science courses from either schedule format. Overall, these large-scale studies did not find convincing evidence that a change to Block scheduling leads to greater understanding or achievement by students.