Block Scheduling and Mathematics
From WikEd
Contents |
Definition and Types of Block Scheduling
Implementing a Block Schedule refers to the practice of breaking up the school day into several longer classes ("blocks") as opposed to six or seven traditional 50 minute periods.
There are several different models, including hybrids, that can be considered a block schedule. The two most popular (and the two discussed here in relation to mathematics) are alternating day (A/B) and intensive or semestered (4x4). A/B block schedules have classes that meet every other school day for the entire school year whereas a 4x4 model allows classes to meet every day but only for one semester of the year. For more on block scheduling and its various models, see Wikipedia.
Applications in the Mathematics Classroom
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is widely regarded as the leading authority on mathematics education in the United States. While it holds no single position for or against block scheduling, much can be constructed from its various position statements relating to standards, pedagogy, and the nature of mathematics. In all of its literature, NCTM emphasizes the importance of problem solving and communication rather than memorization of facts and algorithms. The organization doesn’t prescribe a specific framework for how this should be taught, but it insists that students have a thorough understanding of mathematical concepts.
One aspect of this puzzle is clear to the members of NCTM: math takes time. This slogan is the title of a 2006 position statement that addresses the question, “How much time should be devoted to math instruction?” The answer, according to NCTM, is at least 60 minutes daily. The organization strongly favors an hour long class session over the traditional forty minute period. This statement also encourages teachers to make the most of the period by planning carefully and limiting distractions and disruptions. Most block scheduling plans allow for an additional thirty minutes, creating a 90 minute block of class time. Teachers dont like the block schedule know that a 90 minute block looks, feels, and sounds different than forty minute period. Kranmer (1997) found that lecturing and seatwork were largely ineffective on block schedules and that more participatory methods should be substituted. Additionally, Veal and Flinders (2001) found that successful block teachers relied on the following practices:
- Varied instruction
- Lots of collaborative activities
- Ongoing projects
- Projects involving data analysis
These activities, all examples of highly participatory strategies, promote the type of deep understanding prescribed by NCTM. While there are potential drawbacks that must be considered, block scheduling generally provides an environment conducive to deeper student understanding of mathematics.
In addition to favoring a depth versus breadth perspective, block scheduling has the power to restructure math curriculum. Kranmer (1997) suggests, for example, that a 4x4 schedule can be used to offer additional math courses (2 per year as opposed to 1) or restructure traditional ones (Intensive Algebra or Extended Remedial Math). This requires a strong commitment to block scheduling and great effort in aligning state standards and national assessment. But, at the same time, it offers greater flexibility on behalf of math departments in order to meet individual student needs.
Evidence of Effectiveness
A 2001 meta-analysis found the following evidence supporting block schedules (Rettig & Canady):
- High levels of student, teacher, parent, and administrator satisfaction after an adjustment period
- Fewer discipline referrals
- Decline in failure rate
- Slight increase in graduation rate
These findings, while not directly related to math achievement, contribute to an environment in which teachers and students can focus on math and participate in some of the higher level activities prescribed by Veal and Flinders (2001). Most of the studies in Kramer’s 1997 meta-analysis offered evidence that students experience more in-depth instruction during the longer periods of block scheduling, which is the primary goal of NCTM.
Because additional assessment tools are set in place in virtually all schools in the United States, it is important to consider achievement data as well. There is no significant evidence that block schedules raise or diminish standardized test scores in national aptitude tests or local end of course exams (Rettig and Canady, 2001). Also, though retention can drop if students go a full semester without math instruction, there is evidence that long term achievement is not affected.
Finally, block scheduling can be considered an efficient method of organizing classes: students on block scheduling have the opportunity to complete more courses than peers on a traditional schedule, and most of them do (Rettig and Canady, 2001). This happens without a drop in standardized test scores.
Critics and Their Rationale
There are clear reasons, like those mentioned above, that so many schools have researched and ultimately adopted some form of block scheduling. Such a system can provide a forum for sound pedagogical methods by extending the time student have to interact with material at a given time. But does this actually happen? Do teachers make the necessary changes that allow blocks to impact student achievement?
While many teachers have adapted, others have not. Unfortunately, math teachers are more resistant to changing their methods than teachers of other subjects (Kranmer, 1997). This may contribute to the widespread thought that math and block scheduling do not mesh. As mentioned previously, the benefits of block scheduling are really the benefits of participatory teaching practices; the schedule is simply the framework in which this happens. While blocks are certainly more conducive to such methods, they are not necessarily a catalyst for change (Veal and Flinders, 2001).
The lack of adaptation is not necessarily due to teachers’ personal beliefs or unwillingness to change. Often it is because teachers are not properly trained in planning for and managing a 90-minute period (Kranmer, 1997). For example, a history teacher might plan on lecturing for the entire block just as she did when she had 45 minutes to work with causing her students to be lose focus and become distracted or tired. A math teacher might decide to show examples from two sections from the current chapter instead of one. Both of these teachers are relying on their old lessons and plans and altering them only in length to fit a 90-minute block. As previously discussed, this just doesn’t work for block scheduling.
Other factors contribute to a teachers’ ability to align his or her teaching methods with block scheduling. Kranmer (1997) found that support in the form of staff development, additional planning time, and even restructuring of math curriculum contributed to the likelihood that a teacher would alter classroom practices. When these changes were enacted, in-depth learning occurred. Without the altered classroom, students were left with a more shallow understanding of material.
Another common complaint of block scheduling (especially in math and foreign language) is the possibility of decreased retention after semesters off. In most cases, even supporters of block scheduling acknowledge this as a drawback. Shortt and Thayer (1995) cite retention as a problem with both A/B formats and 4x4 blocks. Block scheduling cannot offer daily instruction throughout the school year without severely limiting the number of courses students are able to take.
"While there may be many reasons for a school to adopt block scheduling, educational advantage in the area of mathematics does not appear to be one of them." This is the conclusion of Karen J. Bennet (2000) in her paper on Block Scheduling: With a Mathematics Perspective.
In another research project, high school student's GPAs were tracked from 9th grade where they were in a traditional schedule to 10th grade where they were in a 4 x 4 block schedule. According to the findings of the research, there was no significant change in student GPAs between the traditional and block scheduling. (Williams, 1999).
Alternative Explanations Due to Diversity Considerations
When looking at block scheduling in regard to achievement data, it may be necessary to break schools down by the populations they serve. A study by Glenn Walker (2000) examined such data while taking into account school size and location as well as socioeconomic status (SES) of students. There was no significant difference in test scores for any group regardless of SES or scheduling framework.
In addition to achievement data, Walker looked specifically at which schools chose to implement a block schedule. He found that large, urban or suburban high schools serving students with primarily low SES were more likely to adopt block schedules than their small and more wealthy neighbors in either rural or suburban schools. One potential explanation for this trend is that the small, low SES schools may have been experiencing more problems and looking for a solution (such as block scheduling) to improve academic performance (Walker, 2000).
Signed Life Experiences, Testimonies, and Stories
I spent three years in a block scheduling math class. We had a 90 minute math class every other day. This meant that there times where I went 4 or 5 days without a math class. I found it very difficult to go so many days between classes. I also was not at the maturity level yet in high school to take learning into my own hands. I struggled with math for the fist year in the block. I eventually lost my spot in the honors track and had to work my way back. Part of that was the dificulty of the topics but there also was the big change from 50 minute classes to 90 minute classes with no break. At the begining teachers tried to cram to much into the 90 minute period. Once the school figured out how to work the block it was not as bad. There is a great advantage to having a longer period for that particular lesson, but it takes careful planning to make sure all topics are covered properly. MM
I attended a high school that had block scheduling. Year long courses like Algebra 1 were taught in a single semester. Therefore, it was possible for a student to take a math course 1st semester of one year and 2nd semester of the next year resulting in an entire year without taking a math course. I enjoyed math and retained most mathematical information. However, many of my peers were the exact opposite. They had difficulty remembering basic topics which created a challenge for the math teachers since math topics build on one another from course to course. Looking back on my high school experience, I liked block scheduling because many nights I didn't have any homework. As a current math teacher, I enjoy teaching on a regular schedule and believe that my students' retention rates are higher than those students on a block schedule. - A. Clow
My high school is still on a traditional schedule, but has block courses for Algebra 1 and Geometry. This means a student gives up an elective, and instead, has a back-to-back math class. Initially, one period was meant for classroom activities and the other was meant for computer based activities, but we've seen a decline in the availability of labs and computers in the last year. The students do not choose to be in this, but are identified as in need of the program. It has shown that providing the blocked time alone is not going to change anything about the achievement of students. Some teachers have seen great success with a handful of struggling students who really benefited from more hands-on activities, but the majority have found it very difficult to plan for 100 minutes of math with students who despise it. It takes a lot of energy for the teacher to create 100 minute lesson plans 5 times a week that engage previously unsuccessful math students, and we aren't convinced that the effort has the desired effect as we have yet to see test scores rise. -Andrea P.
References
Bennett, Karen J. (2000). Block Scheduling: With a Mathematics Perspective. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/bennett1/block_scheduling.htm
Block Scheduling. (2008). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from WikEd: http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/Block_Schedule
Block Scheduling. (2008). Retrieved February 26, 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_scheduling
Kranmer, Steven L. (1997). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, Part I. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 69-82. Retrieved March 22, 2008 from SAGE Journals Online database.
Kranmer, Steven L. (1997). What we know about block scheduling and its effects on math instruction, Part II. NASSP Bulletin, 81, 18-42. Retrieved March 22, 2008 from SAGE Journals Online database.
Math Takes Time (2006). Retrieved March 22, 2008 from National Council for Teachers of Mathematics website: http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=6348
NCTM Standards (2006). Retrieved March 22, 2008 from National Council for Teachers of Mathematics website: http://standards.nctm.org/
Rettig, Michael D., Canady, Robert Lynn (2001). Block Scheduling: More Benefits than Challenges. Response to Thomas. NASSP Bulletin 85: 78-86. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from SAGE Journals Online database.
Shortt, Thomas L., Thayer, Yvonne (1995). What Can We Expect To See in The Next Generation of Block Scheduling? NASSP Bulletin 79: 53-62. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from SAGE Journals Online database.
Veal, William R., Flinders, David J. (2001). How Block Scheduling Reform Effects Classroom Practice. The High School Journal 84.4 21-31. Retrieved March 28, 2008 from Project Muse database.
Walker, Glenn R. (2000). The Effect of Block Scheduling on Mathematics Achievement in High and Low SES Secondary Schools. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, July 2000). Retrieved May 9, 2008 from http://cehd.umn.edu/carei/blockscheduling/Resources/Mathematics.pdf
Williams, Laura M. (1999). Effects of Block Scheduling on Grade Point Averages. (Masters thesis). Retrieved from the ERIC database. ERIC#ED432039 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED432039
