USFDC Home   RSS 
Material Information
Subjects
Record Information

Full Text 
PAGE 1 1 of 14 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 7 Number 29September 19, 1999ISSN 10682341 A peerreviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 1999, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Block Scheduling Effects on a State Mandated Test of Basic Skills William R. Veal University of North CarolinaChapel Hill James Schreiber Indiana UniversityAbstract This study examined the effects of a tr ischedule on the academic achievement of students in a high school. The trischedule consists of traditional, 4x4 block, and hybrid sche dules running at the same time in the same high school. Effectivenes s of the schedules was determined from the state mandated te st of basic skills in reading, language, and mathematics. Students who were in a particular schedule their freshman year were tested at the beginning of their sophomore year. A statistical ANCOVA test was performed using the schedule types as independent variables a nd cognitive skill index and GPA as covariates. For reading and langua ge, there was no statistically significant difference in test result s. There was a statistical difference mathematicscomputation. Blo ck mathematics is an ideal format for obtaining more credits in ma thematics, but the block format does little for mathematics achievemen t and conceptual understanding. The results have content specific im plications for schools, administrations, and school boards who are considering PAGE 2 2 of 14block scheduling adoption. The past decade has provided schools wi th many opportunities to reform education at a local level. One reform movement tha t has gained in popularity in the past few years is block scheduling. More than fifty perc ent of secondary schools in the United States have opted to change their schools' schedule to one that involves longer classes (Canady & Rettig, 1995). Proponents of school refor m often view block scheduling as a way to extend the traditional periods of uninterrup ted class time and improve student achievement (Bevevino, Snodgrass, Adams, & Dengel, 1998; Canady & Rettig, 1995; Cobb, Abate, & Baker, 1999; Queen & Isenhour, 1998; Canady & Rettig, 1996). As the trend continues to grow throughout the United State s, teachers, parents, administrators, and university professors are seeking evidence for the impact of block scheduling on student achievement. As reformers have sought bette r ways to increase student achievement in the high schools, the question of ti me used for instruction has become a major focus.Literature Review There have been many debates at the dis trict and school levels about the perceived benefits of block scheduling. The results of studie s have supported and denounced the implementation of block scheduling. Previous studie s have reported favorable teacher attitudes and perceptions about block scheduling th ough the use of surveys (Pullen, Morse, & Varrella, 1998; Sessoms, 1995; Tanner, 199 6). Other studies have reported on the relationship between block scheduling and stude nt grade point averages (Buckman, King & Ryan, 1995; Edwards 1993; Holmberg, 1996; Sc hoenstein, 1995). These studies focused mainly on trends in grade point averages ov er time of implementation. Mixed results have been reported on state standardized te st scores (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1996) and standardized test scores (Bateson, 1990; Hess, Wronkovich & Robinson, 1998; Lockwood, 1995; Wild, 1998). Most of these studies support the longer traditional schedule over the 4 x 4 block in science for example, yet support the 4 x 4 block schedule in math and social studies. Graduation rates have also been reported to benefit from the 4 x 4 schedule (C arroll, 1995; Monroe, 1989; Sessoms, 1995). The findings of these studies have been inco nsistent, sometimes reporting gains for students on block scheduling, sometimes reporti ng no differences, and sometimes reporting losses compared with students on traditio nal scheduling. Several largesample studies, for example, have reported results in mult iple subject areas. Hess, Wronkovich, and Robinson (1998) and Wronkovich, Hess, and Robin son (1997) used "retired" copies of SAT II Achievement Tests. Using the OtisLennon Scholastic Aptitude Test as a covariate, they conducted regression analyses on pr eand posttests. The study concluded that there were no significant differences in stude nt achievement between 4x4 semester and traditional schedule types in geometry and hist ory, and a significant difference in biology and English with 4x4 semester schedule stud ents achieving higher scores than the traditional schedule. In a second study done by The College B oard (1998), tests were examined for student achievement differences in four subject are as: Calculus, biology, US history, and English literature. An analysis of covariance using the PSAT/NMSQT as a covariate was performed on Advanced Placement examination scores. Students who were taught AP English literature under an extended traditional cl ass time (meeting everyday for more than 60 minutes) scored significantly higher than s tudents in a traditional schedule, and PAGE 3 3 of 14both fall and spring 4x4 schedules. Students who to ok the AP US history exam in both the traditional and extended traditional format out performed those in the 4x4 block schedules. Students enrolled in an extended traditi onal AP biology and calculus class outperformed those students in a traditional format and the 4x4 block schedules. However, these results might be expected if more ti me was spent on a daily basis learning any subject. Moreover, the results reported the eff ects of the traditional, extended traditional, and the 4x4 schedules, but did not inc lude other types of block scheduling (e.g., block 8, alternating block, trimester, or hy brid). Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999) used a po sttest only, matched pairs design to evaluate standardized achievement in mathematics, r eading, and writing. The researchers found that block students performed significantly l ess well on the mathematics standardized test. There were no differences in ach ievement on the standardized reading and writing test scores. The literature is consiste nt on the inconsistency of achievement of students within the block schedule. Most studies have examined students aft er they have switched to a new schedule. Few studies have directly compared student achievem ent within the same school utilizing different schedules. The purpose of this paper is t o add to the literature base a study which investigated student achievement on standardi zed tests of reading, language, and mathematics. The tests results were evaluated based upon the three schedule types within the same school. Systematic examinations of the eff ects of block scheduling are needed if research is to adequately inform reform movements a nd decisions.MethodsContext In the spring of 1994, discussions were held on changing the traditional day schedule at South Springfield High School (SSHS). T he change to a 4x4 alternative schedule was proposed after five years of study and consideration. However, a compromise trischedule was implemented rather than a 4x4block schedule. The trischedule included three schedules types (tradit ional, 4x4block, and hybrid) running at the same time during the school day. The traditiona l schedule consisted of six 55minute classes that were taught for the entire school year The 4x4block schedule consisted of four 87minute classes that were taught in one seme ster. The hybrid schedule consisted of three traditional and two block classes taught each day. South Springfield High School is a larg e, fouryear school located in a mediumsized college town in the Midwest. The stude nt population of 1800 is mostly white and includes children from the city and rural areas of the county. In the fall of 1997, SSHS began the scheduling format described earlier. Under this format, both traditional and block courses were offered in all subject areas except the performing arts and advanced placement classes. The total contact time in block courses was approximately 37 hours less than for yearlong traditional courses (Table 1). This equated to 40 fewer class meetings for block classes than traditional c lasses.Table 1 Descriptive Information for Classes under Block and Traditional Formats PAGE 4 4 of 14 Schedule DescriptorsTraditionalHybrid4X4 Block Class Time (mins./day) 55 55 and 87 87 Number of Days of Instruction 180 180 and 90 90 Class Time (mins./school year) 9900 9900 and 7830 7 830 Classes/Day 6 5 4 Classes/Year 6 7 8 Hours/Day 6.5 6.5 6.5 Credits 12 14 16 Teacher Utilization Ratea,b83% 83%b75% Defined as the total teaching contact hours divided by the total class time during a day. a. Teacher utilization rate was the same for all teach ers due to contract and union regulations. b.Students During their freshman year, the student s were randomly assigned to a block or traditional schedule. Due to scheduling concerns wi th special education students and Advanced Placement classes, students were then aske d to switch into different classes than originally assigned. This resulted in the form ation of the hybrid schedule to accommodate the course requests. Learning from the first year's scheduling dilemma, scheduling for the second year was student driven. Students submitted requests to take certain classes in either the block or traditional format. Based upon frequency counts, certain classes were only offered in one particular format one time and in the other format multiple times. Due to the proportionately distribu ted classes, student choice was ultimately limited to certain class formats.State Mandated Test of Basic Skills The Indiana Statewide Testing for Educa tional Progress (ISTEP+) is a state mandated test of basic skills that all students in Grades 3, 6, 8, and 10 had to take. All 10th graders (sophomores) are required to take all three sections of the ISTEP+ test, regardless of previous year state of residence or s chool. The results included only those students who took all three sections of the test (N = 327). Due to absences, some students did not take certain portions of the test. The areas tested include reading, langu age, and mathematics. The subareas of reading are comprehension and vocabulary. The suba reas of language are mechanics and expression. The subareas of mathematics are concep ts and applications, and computation. In addition to these subareas, each a rea has a total score and a battery score for the entire test. For the purposes of this study only scores on the subareas are reported since the total areas are composed of the two indiv idual subareas, and the battery is a composite of all six subareas. Norm Curve Equivale nt (NCE) scores and the Cognitive Skills Index (CSI) were used from the result printo ut for analysis. The NCE and CSI scores were normreferenced. The NCE scores (199) were based upon an equalinterval PAGE 5 5 of 14 scale. Using NCE scores allowed us to compare score s among schedule groups. The CSI describes an individual's overall performance on th e ISTEP+ aptitude test. It compares the student's cognitive ability with that of studen ts who are the same age. The CSI is a normalized standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. The test was administered over a four day period for three h ours per day. Each section of the test was timed. Table 2 shows the descriptive informatio n about the students who took the ISTEP+ test.Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Students Taking ISTEP+Schedule Type N 199798 Freshman GPA CSI Traditional 117 2.73 113.06 Block 141 3.01 113.08 Hybrid 75 3.25 116.99 Analysis ANCOVA statistical tests were run on th e SPSS computer statistical software package. Because it was impossible to obtain a rand omized or matched sample in this present study, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was utilized for the design. The ANCOVA for each dependent variable was a one factor fixed effect (schedule type: traditional, block, hybrid) with CSI (cognitive ski lls index) and cumulative GPA as simultaneous multiple covariates.ResultsReading Both of the subareas for reading were analyzed and determined to be nonsignificant by schedule type, and thus their re sults are not reported. Using readingtotal as an example, CSI and GPA provided s ignificant regression effects (F[1,331] = 160.740, p < .001; F[1,331] = 6.308, p < .001) respectively. No main effect for schedule type was found for readingtotal (F[2, 331] = 1.470, p = .231 ). Language Both of the subareas for language were also analyzed and determined to be nonsignificant by schedule type, and thus their re sults are not reported. Using languagetotal as an example, CSI and GPA provided significant regression effects (F[1,331] = 140.809, p < .001; F[1,331] = 51.153, p < .001) respectively. No main effect for schedule type was found for languagetotal (F[2 ,331] = .679, p = .508 ). Mathematics PAGE 6 6 of 14 The ANCOVA results for mathematicscomp utation were significant. The covariates CSI and GPA provided significant regress ion effects for the dependent variable (F[1,331] = 155.369, p < .001 and F[1,331] = 53.196, p < .001 ) respectively (Table 3). A significant main effect for schedule t ype (Table 3) was found (F[2,331] = 4.380, p = .013). Table 4 shows the unadjusted mean scores for the mathematicscomputation section of the ISTEP+ based upon schedule type. Traditional schedule students scored significantly higher on ma thematicscomputation than block and hybrid students (Table 5). The traditional and bloc k students had a mean difference of 4.175 (p = .006) and the traditional and hybrid stu dents had a mean difference of 4.181 (p = .022).Table 3 ANCOVA for Dependent Variable Mathematicscomputati onSource Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CSI 22152.877 1 22152.877 155.369 .000 CUMGPA 7584.834 1 7584.834 53.196 .000 Schedule 1248.920 2 624.460 4.380 .013 Error 46624.507 327 142.583 Table 4 Meansa for Mathematicscomputation by ScheduleSchedule Mean Std. Error Traditional 69.115 1.128 Block 64.940 1.008 Hybrid 64.934 1.399 a Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: CS I = 113.9819, CUMGPA = 2.9750.Table 5 Pairwise Comparisons for Dependent Variable Mathematicscomputation(I) Schedule (J) Schedule Mean Difference (IJ) Std Error Sig. Traditional Block 4.175 1.521 .006 Traditional Hybrid 4.181 1.823 .022 Block Hybrid 0.005 1.720 .997 For the dependent variable, mathematics concepts and application, CSI and GPA provided a significant regression effect (F[1,331] = 188.767, p < .001 and F[1,331] = PAGE 7 7 of 14 41.867, p < .001 ), respectively. No main effect fo r schedule type was found (F[2,331] = 1.456, p = .235), thus tables are not provided due to the nonsignificant results. Even though three schedules existed at the high school a nd all students were enrolled in one of three schedules, students took mathematics in eithe r a traditional or block format. The ANCOVA results from Table 5 would indicate that the traditional schedule is better for student achievement than the hybrid and block sched ules. Mathematics was not taught in a hybrid format; only a block or traditional format Thus a statistical ANCOVA test was performed on mathematicscomputation separating the students based upon their mathematics class format. The covariates CSI and GP A, provided significant regression effects (F[1,332] = 164.238, p < .001 and F[1,332] = 43.876, p < .001 ) respectively (Table 6). A significant main effect for mathematic s class format was not found (F[1,332] = 0.018 p = .892).Table 6 ANCOVA with Dependent Variable Mathematicscomputat ion for All SophomoresSource Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CSI 24069.004 1 24069.004 164.238 .000 CUMGPA 6429.975 1 6429.975 43.876 .000 Format 2.703 1 2.703 .018 .892 Error 48068.272 328 146.550 DiscussionReading and Language There is no schedule that is significan tly better than another for student achievement on ISTEP+ reading and language scores. After adjusting for differences in CSI and GPA, students scores on the reading and lan guage portions of the ISTEP+ were comparable. In essence, the schedule type did not i nfluence positively or negatively student scores. The findings of this study confirm the results found in previous studies. Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999) and Holmberg (1996) r eported that there were no differences in student achievement on reading and w riting standardized test scores. In terms of the development of reading and language sk ills, as long as students are taking classes for the same amount of time each year, read ing and language scores might be expected to remain the same. Perhaps all classes th at a student might take under any schedule format, reinforce reading and language ski lls by incorporating some kind of reading and language component to their curriculum. Reading and language skills are most often found and needed in all types of curricu lum and are thus reinforced across all classes.Mathematics The traditional schedule seems better f or the understanding and retention of mathematical computation as determined from ISTEP+ scores for sophomores. Some PAGE 8 8 of 14 studies have reported that block scheduling was des irable because it allowed for more credits and classes to be taken (Queen & Isenhour, 1998). What has not been examined is how a decrease in total time throughout the year du e to a schedule change might influences mathematics learning. Does taking a math ematics class everyday with a longer total percentage of time in class benefit a student over taking more mathematics classes with less time in each math class? Table 6 shows the ANCOVA results for ma thematicscomputation based upon mathematics format of all students taking the ISTEP +. The nonsignificant results indicate that the mathematics format taken by stude nts does not have an impact on their standardized mathematics test scores. Thus, schedul e type was not a factor in the test scores for sophomores even though parts of the curr iculum were left out of the block format classes due to time constraints (see Table 1 ). It is also interesting to note that the students were equalized using the two covariates. I nitial glance of the unadjusted means might indicate that the traditional students actual ly did better. This was not the result. Another issue that has been discussed as an advanta ge of block scheduling is that students can take more classes, including more core classes such as mathematics, under the 4x4 block schedule (Queen & Isenhour, 1998). At SSHS, p roponents of block scheduling used this argument to bolster support for block sch eduling. If a student could take more mathematics courses, could the student complete and understand the curriculum? In order to answer this question we examined 76 sophomores t hat took more than one mathematics class their freshman year. Of those stu dents one was in the traditional schedule and one was in the block schedule. Seventy three students who took more than one mathematics class were hybrid. These hybrid stu dents had the opportunity to take the mathematics classes in either a block or traditiona l format. Twentytwo of the 73 hybrid students took their mathematics classes in a block format, and 51 took their mathematics classes in a traditional format. Table 7 shows the ANCOVA results for mathematicscomputation for those hybrid students w ho took their freshman mathematics classes in either the traditional or block format. Those students who had mathematics for a longer daily period (block) all year scored the s ame on the ISTEP+ mathematics section as those students in a traditional format after adj usting for CSI and GPA. This result indicates that taking more than one mathematics cla ss does not increase a student's mathematics achievement. Thus, the argument that bl ock scheduling would allow more students to take more mathematics classes is true, the impact of the increased learning is not justified due to the lack of time and curriculu m in the mathematics classes due to the shorter class hours in the block format.Table 7 ANCOVA with Dependent Variable Mathematicscomputat ion for Hybrid SophomoresSource Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. CSI 5560.221 1 5560.221 47.473 .000 CUMGPA 1568.259 1 1568.259 13.390 .000 Format 174.561 1 17.561 .150 .700 Error 8081.619 69 117.125 PAGE 9 9 of 14 Moreover, those hybrid students who too k more than one math class their freshman year scored similarly when they took mathe matics classes in the block schedule. In essence, the hybrid students who took more than one math class their freshman year not only took math daily, but were immersed in math ematics for a longer period of time every day for an entire year. Even though these stu dents lost content in the block format, they made up for the lose with increased amount of mathematics content at higher levels. These results support the conclusion that mathemati cs is best learned and understood under a daily format. Also, more time spent on lear ning mathematics concepts in an extended period seems to reinforce those concepts. In essence, block mathematics is good for taking more mathematics classes and obtaining m ore graduation credits, but the block format per se does little to increase students' und erstanding of mathematics. Another issue is the possible "gap in l earning" resulting from a block schedule student taking mathematics his/her first semester f reshman year and not taking it again until his/her sophomore year. We were unable to det ermine the effect of the "gap in learning" associated with the 4x4 block schedule. B y looking at the mathematicscomputation scores, it would indicate t hat the "gap in learning" was not a significant factor in mathematics achievement as ma ny previous people have perceived (Kramer, 1996; Wronkovich, Hess, & Robinson, 1997). We can speculate that the "gap in learning" was not an issue since the difference in scores on the mathematicscomputation section was not significantly different from those students in the traditional and block schedules (see Table 6). The results found in this study confirm those found in other studies, while conflicting with some others. Learning mathematics under an extended schedule format (daily and greater than 60 minutes) was advantageou s for students using an Advanced Placement achievement test (The College Board, 1998 ). These results also confirm findings by Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999). Several studies have reported higher grades for students in block mathematics (e.g., Carroll, 1 995; Stennett & Rachar, 1973). In essence, some mathematics results due to scheduling type reported in the literature are tenuous at best. Fewer studies have been completed and reported in the literature using standardized tests (Cobb, Abate, & Baker, 1999; Hes s, Wronkovich, & Robinson, 1998; The College Board, 1998).Conclusions This study supports the importance of d aily instruction and contact time to student achievement in mathematics as distinct from other a cademic skills. However, the mechanisms that determine this relationship are les s clear, and educational policy makers would be unwise to conclude that one type of schedu le is generally better than others independent of how different schedules influence th e number and type of courses that students take across the secondary curriculum. More research is needed to address the concern of "timeofdiscipline." Does a block sche dule improve student achievement even when the total amount of time is decreased wit hin discipline areas? Which academic areas are most negatively and positively effected b y the switch to a particular schedule type? Should one schedule be the model for all scho ols? These are important questions that need to be answered by researchers in differen t academic areas. References PAGE 10 10 of 14Bateson, D.J.(1990). Science achievement in semeste r and allyear courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (3), 233240. Bevevino, M. M., Snodgrass, D. M., Adams, K. M., & Dengel, J. A. (1998). An educator's guide to block scheduling: Decision maki ng, curriculum design, and lesson planning strategies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Buckman, D., King, B., and Ryan, S. (1995). Block s cheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP bulletin, 79 (571), 918. Canady, R. and Rettig, M. (1995). Block scheduling: A catalyst for change in high school Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Canady, R. L., and Rettig, M. D., (Eds.) (1996). Teaching in the block: Strategies for engaging active learners. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Carroll, J. M. (1995). The Copernican Plan evaluate d: The evolution of a revolution. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 104110, 112113. Cobb, R. B., Abate, S., & Baker, D. (1999). Effects on students of a 4 x 4 junior high school block scheduling program. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7(3 ), (Entire issue). (Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/ep aa/v7n3.html.) Edwards, C. (1993). The 4 X 4 plan. Educational Leadership, 53 (3): 1619. Hess, C., Wronkovich, M., and Robinson, J. (1998). Measured outcomes of learning in the block. Manuscript submitted for publication.Holmberg, T. (1996). Block scheduling versus tradit ional education: A comparison of gradepoint averages and ACT scores. Unpublished do ctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire.Kramer, S. L. (1996). Block scheduling and high sch ool mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Teacher, 89 758767. Lockwood, S. (1995). Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact of student achievement in Algebra and Geometry. NASSP Bulletin, 79 (575), 102108. Monroe, M. J. (1989). BLOCK: successful alternative format addressing learner needs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Associ ation of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO.North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Di vision of Accountability Services (1996). Blocked scheduled high school achievement: Comparison of 1995 endofcourse test scores for blocked and nonblocked high school s, Raleigh, NC: Evaluation Services Section, Division of Accountability.Pullen, S. L., Morse, J., and Varrella, G. F. (1998 ). A second look at block scheduling. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Nat ional Association of Science Teachers, Las Vegas, NV. PAGE 11 11 of 14Queen, J. A., and Isenhour, K. G. (1998). The 4x4 block schedule. New York: Eye on Education, Inc.Schoenstein, R. (1995). The new school on the block schedule. The Executive Educator, 17 (8): 1821. Sessoms, J. C. (1995). Teachers perceptions of thre e models of high school block scheduling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Virginia, Charlottesville. Stennett, R. G. & Rachar, B. (1973). Gains in mathe matics knowledge in Grade 10 semestered and nonsemestered programmes. London, O ntario: London board of Education. (Micromedia Limited Use Microlog order N o. ON00775). Tanner, B. M. (1996). Perceived staff needs of teac hers in high schools with block schedules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Unive rsity of Virginia, Charlottesville. The College Board. (May, 1998). Block schedules and student performance on AP Examinations. Research News, RN03 New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Wild, R. D. (April, 1998). Science achievement and block schedules. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA.Wronkovich, M., Hess, C. A., & Robinson, J. E. (199 7). An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block schedulin g. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (593): 3241.About the AuthorsWilliam R. VealAssistant Professor, Science EducationThe University of North CarolinaChapel HillCB #3500 Peabody HallChapel Hill, NC 275993500(919) 9629891 (919) 9621533 Fax Email: wveal@email.unc.edu William Veal is an assistant professor of science e ducation at UNCChapel Hill. He taught secondary science in a block schedule in Sal t Lake City. His other research interests lie in the development of pedagogical con tent knowledge in preservice science educators and the implications for teacher educatio n. James SchreiberIndiana UniversityBloomington, INJames Schreiber is a former high school mathematics teacher, and currently works as PAGE 12 12 of 14 Senior Research Associate at the Indiana Center for Evaluation. He has been involved with education at different levels, specifically fo cusing on international mathematics achievement. He is currently studying toward his Ph .D. in Educational Psychology at Indiana University.Copyright 1999 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, glass@asu.edu or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 852870211. (60296596 44). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: shepherd@asu.edu The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: casey.cobb@unh.edu .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson a_coulson@msn.com Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov hmwkhelp@scott.net Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North CarolinaGreensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas MauhsPugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeownMoak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton apembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo PAGE 13 13 of 14 Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven scriven@aol.com Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisUC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico roberto@servidor.unam.mx Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.angulo@uca.es Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmicaCIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativaDIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx kentr@data.net.mx Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do SulUFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es PAGE 14 14 of 14 Daniel Schugurensky (ArgentinaCanad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica simon@openlink.com.br Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu xml version 1.0 encoding UTF8 standalone no record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchemainstance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd leader nam a22 u 4500 controlfield tag 008 c19999999azu 000 0 eng d datafield ind1 8 ind2 024 subfield code a E1100141 0 245 Educational policy analysis archives. n Vol. 7, no. 29 (September 19, 1999). 260 Tempe, Ariz. : b Arizona State University ; Tampa, Fla. : University of South Florida. c September 19, 1999 505 Block scheduling effects on a state mandated test of basic skills / William R. Veal [and] James Schreiber. 650 Education x Research v Periodicals. 2 710 Arizona State University. University of South Florida. 1 773 t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) 4 856 u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e11.141 xml version 1.0 encoding UTF8 standalone no mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchemainstance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods31.xsd mods:relatedItem type host mods:identifier issn 10682341mods:part mods:detail volume mods:number 7issue 29series Year mods:caption 19991999Month September9Day 1919mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 19990919 