Article 29
Essay Preview: Article 29
Report this essay
Article 29: Constructivism and Block Scheduling
Donald G. Hackmann
Terms:
Block Scheduling: making high school periods 80-110 minutes instead of the usual 40-55 minute periods
Summary:
Article 29 discusses the issue of block scheduling. It starts out explaining, very basically, how a constructivist teachers. The article goes on to state that many secondary schools are moving away from the constructivist approach and are starting to block schedule students. This means that instead of being regular 40-minute periods, students are put into fewer but larger periods that are about twice as long as the old periods. There is really no proof stating that these longer periods are more beneficial to students, but a lot of teachers are finding it had to fill the whole period when given so much time.
Some researchers argue that constructivism and block scheduling may actually go hand in hand. Due to the emphasis of learning methods through constructivism, more time may be necessary to fully teach through constructivism. Block scheduling may also be appealing because it can provide course flexibility, enhance the quality of a students educational experience, improve school climate and address staffing needs. The most recent estimates state that around 30% of all U.S. high school use some form of block scheduling.
However, not all is well with block scheduling. Some schools seem to implement block scheduling without changing anything else. They may do this because it appears to be the latest fad or because they have seen block scheduling work elsewhere, but Lynda Wyatt warns, “Block scheduling without fundamental changes in instruction is merely longer blocks of the same old stuff.” Teachers must adapt to the new system and figure out the most effective ways