I do think it could matter. Despite the greatest flexibility of the teacher and the dedicated interest of the student, it just might be that a ninety-minute block of time for instruction might not be the *most* effective. I am looking for both anecdotal information and also for URLs to the 1995 comparative study from Canada [I think it was British Columbia].
Philosopically, I agree with you that how instruction is "packaged" should not be that important.
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 Lutemann@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-11-12 04:01:00 EST, email@example.com (William > Stork) writes: > > << Does block scheduling promote more effective learning at the secondary > level? > > Thomas Struble's letter to the editor in the October 1996 Mathematics > Teacher seems to idicate that learning effectiveness declines with the > change to the block scheduling concept. Do you concur? > > Our department is currently discussing this very issue, and any comments, > references, and insights from others would be most appreciated! >> > > > > How could it possibly matter. If the students are interested, and the > teacher is flexible, scheduling irrelevant. > > Kent >