Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Information on effects of Block Scheduling on Math Instruction
Posted:
Dec 3, 2000 3:52 AM
|
|
> Hopefully, these four sources will provide some help for you. Mary
>1. BLOCK SCHEDULING RESEARCH
>Nov. 20, 1999
>
In the Nov. 22, 1000 copy off Texas Education News are the results of a Texas
Education Agency study of block scheduling in Texas high schools.
>
>"TEA researchers say they can find no proof that longer class periods --
>used in the block scheduling approach in Texas high schools -- have
>resulted in improved student learning. The findings are contained in a new
>54-page study prepared by the TEA's research and evaluation division...How
>effectively students and teachers engage in the teaching-learning process
>appears to matter much more than the length of class periods...The authors
>also acknowledged the arguments of critics who complained that block
>scheduling actually reduces instructional time over the school year -- and
>that teacher and student concentration is weakened over a 90-minute
>period."
>
>The report looked at Texas high schools (9-12) from 1996-97. At that time
>43% of the state's high schools had some sort of block scheduling.
>
>"The study's authors also reported that they did not attempt to assess all
>possible benefits or conequences of block scheduling."
>
>To obtain the full report entitled "Policy Research Report Number 13: Block
>Scheduling in Texas Public High Schools" call 512-475-3523. Texas
>Education News states that the report will eventually be posted at
>http://www.tea.state.tx.us/research.
>
2. A treasure trove of links to articles on Block scheduling and math
http://forum.swarthmore.edu/mathed/block.schedules.html
3. 2. RAPHAEL STUDY OF MATH, SAMPLED FROM 250 CLASSES IN 80 SCHOOLS
Raphael, D., Wahlstrom, M.W. and McLean, L.D. (1986). "Debunking the
semestering myth." Canadian Journal of Education, 11(1), 36-52.
Abstract: "Advantages claimed for semester organization of secondary schools
were examined using data from a probability sample of 250 mathematics
classrooms in 80 Ontario schools. Achievement and attitude data were collected
from 5280 students in the course of the Second International Mathematics Study,
and it was determined that 94 of the classes were taught in half the school
year, i.e., by semesters. Teachers in semester schools were likely to report
use of a greater variety of instructional materials. Suggestions reported in
the literature of better student attitudes and achievement were not supported,
and performance of Grade 12 and 13 students in semestered classes was
significantly lower than those in year-long classes. Teachers in semester
schools reported comparable coverage of mathematics content, but fewer hours of
instruction in their courses. Number of years of teaching experience was not
correlated with student achievement in semester schools, but a positive
correlation was observed in year-long classes. Lower achievement in semester
mathematics classes was observed with no advantage in student attitudes."
"CONCLUSIONS: There may be many reasons for choosing a semester organization
for a school, but educational advantage in terms of student attitudes and
achievement does not appear to be one of them--at least not in mathematics
classes. Instead of the more positive attitudes predicted, students in semester
classes had either less positive or similar attitudes. Mathematics achievement
was, however, clearly greater in year-long classes. None of the background
measures available showed any difference in student, teacher, or school
characteristics that could provide an alternate explanation for the achievement
and attitude differences."
"The one possible exception was the amount of teaching experience, since
teachers in year-long classes had on average just over two more years
experience than their colleagues in semester classes. Where appropriate,
allowance was made for this possible difference by statistical means. Reviews
of the literature suggest in any event that teacher effects, for which years of
experience is at best a weak surrogate, "are likely to be small when compared
with the totality of the effects of the other variables affecting student
achievement" (Centra and Potter, 1980, p. 287). The most parsimonious
explanation is that students learned more mathematics in the full-year classes
and developed at least as good an attitude toward the subject."
4. Caution advised on Block Scheduling
http://www.execpc.com/~presswis/block.html
--
submissions: post to k12.ed.math or e-mail to k12math@sd28.bc.ca
private e-mail to the k12.ed.math moderator: kem-moderator@thinkspot.net
newsgroup website: http://www.thinkspot.net/k12math/
newsgroup charter: http://www.thinkspot.net/k12math/charter.html
|
|
|
|
