Kent, I think it does matter in the sense that all of the block scheduling schemes I have seen and including the one I now teach under, result in a reduction in classroom time--e.g. Classes which meet every day for 50 minutes under an A day B day block schedule meet for 80-83 minutes every other day. The result is about 50 minutes or one class period a week less time for mathematics! There are some good things about it, but on the whole I'd prefer a much more flexible modular type scheduling--that is some days I'd like to meet for maybe only 25-30 minutes, some days for 45-50 minutes, and of course the 80 minutes are nice for activities, extended investigations, etc. I must however resist anything which reduces the already anemic amount of time students spend in academic classrooms. Block scheduling would be great if it were coupled with an increase in school days from 180 to something more reasonable like 220 per year. Just my two cents worth.
Lutemann@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 96-11-12 04:01:00 EST, firstname.lastname@example.org (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