Effects on students of a 4 x 4 junior high school block scheduling program

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 7, Issue , 1999, Pages

  Cobb, R Brian ^a,c   Abate, Stacey ^a,b,d,g   Baker, Dennis ^b,d,e,f  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b Poudre (CO) School District   (United States)

^c R D Ctr the Adv of Student Lrng   (United States)

^d Poudre School District   (United States)

^e Fort Collins High School   (United States)

^f Univ N Colorado Educ Leadership   (United States)

^g R D Ctr the Adv of Student Lrng   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042544635     PISSN: 10682341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Agency for Educational Development, (1995). Study of school-to- work reform initiatives. Volume I: Findings and Conclusions. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Buckman, D., King, B., & Ryan, S. (1995). Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 9-18.
3. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
4. Cawelti, G. (1994). High school restructuring: A national survey. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
5. Center on Educational Governance, (1995). The school-based management study. Volume I: Findings and conclusions. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, School of Education.
6. Cox, L. (1994). A study of the effects of a block scheduling program with high school students who are "at-risk". Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
7. Davis-Wiley, P., George, M., & Cozart, A. (1995, November). Block scheduling in the secondary arena: Perceptions from the inside. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Biloxi, MS.
8. Firestone, W. A. (1990). Continuity and incrementalism after all: State responses to the excellence movement. In J. Murphy (Ed.). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
9. Fuhrman, S. H., & Massell, D. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
10. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. Volume I: Findings and conclusions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11. Guskey, T. R., & Kifer, E. (1995, April). Evaluation of a high school block schedule restructuring program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
12. Holmberg, T. (1996). Block scheduling versus traditional education: A comparison of grade-point averages and ACT scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire.
13. Hurley, J. C. (1997b). The 4 x 4 block scheduling model: What do students have to say about it? NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 64-72.
14. Lockwood, S. (1995). Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact on student achievement in algebra and geometry in Dothan City Schools, Dothan, Alabama. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
15. Meadows, M. E. (1995). A preliminary program review of the four-period day as implemented in four high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
16. Mistretta, G. M., & Polansky, H. B. (1997). Prisoners of time: Implementing a block schedule in a high school. NASSP Bulletin, 81, (593), 23-31.
17. Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
18. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (199 ). Block scheduled high school achievement: Comparison of 1995 end-of-course test scores for blocked and non-Blocked high schools [On-line]. Available: http://www.dpi.state. nc.us/block_ block_scheduling_report/#4
19. Parkinson, S., & Parkinson, C. (1995). Examination scores: Block teaching versus traditional teaching. Nurse Educator, 20(4), 14.
20. Payne, D., & Jordan, M. (1996). The evaluation of a high school block schedule: Convergence of teacher and student data. American Secondary Education, 25(2), 16-19.
21. Queen, J. A., Algozzine, B., & Eaddy, M. (1996). The success of 4 x 4 block scheduling in the social studies. The Social Studies, 87 (6), 249-253.
22. Queen, J. A., Algozzine, R. F., & Eaddy, M. A., (1997). The road we traveled: Scheduling in the 4 x 4 block. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (588), 88-99.
23. Odden, A., & Marsh, D. (1990). Local response to the 1980s state education reforms: New patterns of local and state interactions. In J. Murphy (Ed.). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
24. Polos, N. C. (1969). Flexible scheduling: Advantages and disadvantages. Education, 89, 315-319.
25. Reid, L. (1995). Perceived effects of block scheduling on the teaching of English. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 950).
26. Reid, W., Hierck, T., & Veregin, L. (1994). Measurable gains of block scheduling. School Administrator, 51, 32-33.
27. Shortt, T. L., & Thayer, Y. V. (1997). A vision for block scheduling: Where are we now? Where are we going? NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 1-15.
28. Schroth, G., & Dixon, J. (1995). The effects of block scheduling on seventh grade math students. East Texas State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 887)
29. Sigurdson, S. (1981). The block plan. An alternative approach to the needs of junior high school students. Final report, 1981. Alberta, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 623.
30. Sigurdson, S. (1982). Two years on the block plan. Meeting the needs of junior high school students. Final report, 1982. Alberta, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 946.
31. Steagall, P. H. (1968). A study of the bolck-of-time scheduling in the secondary business and office education program in Ohio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
32. Stewart, J. W., & Shank, J. (1971). Daily demand of modular flexible scheduling for small schools. Educational Leadership, 29, 537-544.
33. Van Mondfrans, A. P., Schott, J. L., & French, D. G. (1972). Comparing block scheduling and traditional scheduling on student achievement and attitudes. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
34. Wills, F. G., & Peterson, K. D. (1992). External pressures for reform and strategy formation at the district level: Superintendent's interpretations of state demands. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(3), 241-260.
35. Wohlstetter, P., Smyer, R., & Mohrman, S. A. (1994). New boundaries for school-based management: The high involvement model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3),
36. Wood, C. L. (1970). Modular scheduling? Yes but ---. Journal of Secondary Education, 45, 40-42.
37. Wronkovich, M., Hess, C. A., & Robinson, J. E. (1997). An objective look a math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81(593), 33-41.