Talk:Block scheduling

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wblai1 (article contribs).

POV issues

This article appears to take a pro-block scheduling stance, talking about "wasted" time between class periods and mentioning only the advantages of block scheduling, without mentioning the disadvantages. As such, I've tagged with a {{POV}} tag. I may get a chance to work on the POV myself but I can't right now. Powers ^T 15:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed that by adding material on common criticisms. -- Beland 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be anti-block scheduling. There is very little support for block scheduling. Under "Effectiveness" there is no support for block scheduling. There should be both sides under this, probably split in two sub-sections, one fro pros and one for cons. Holycow958 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does need two sides...(but block schedules suck anyways ;)) --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems very one-sided, anti-block scheduling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.47.44 (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. This article article is clearly against block scheduling!--98.220.124.133 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is biased against block scheduling. The criticisms appear to deal with poor instruction; it's not the amount of time that's causing lower scores and "less learning," it's poor teaching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.227.231 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to clean up NPOV issues to present points from both pro and con sides. I am removing NPOV tag as I feel it is relatively balanced at this point. But feel free to make it even more neutral and even handed. --Mdukas (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks much description about the block scheduling supporters' arguments. As long as there are block scheduling schools, there has to be supporters of it out there. --dotdapple (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

There should be a section that goes into more detail of each type of block scheduling. For example, one for 4x4, one for AB days, etc. If someone does this, creating a table like the one on the top for each type would help a lot for comprehension. Holycow958 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pros and cons should be listed as well. Perhaps resources that are not so biased against it. It makes it sound like it is a relic or an ancient educational practice from "way back in the 1990s".... Our school is debating this very topic and this article was not helpful in any way. It might as well not exist.

Effectiveness

I am not sure if there is any proof for this, but block scheduling makes sense to me because once you begin a class, it takes a few minutes to get focused, after which it is easier to pay attention to the material for a full 80 minutes. Otherwise it would take more time to get focused each class, therefore wasting (or extra, if you think wasted implies POV) time. PhorkPhace 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If educators are properly trained in best practice, brain research, and effectively using the block it's benefits would be much more obvious. The length of time is conducive to student learning; poor teaching is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.227.231 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homework

I think there should be some note about homework in block scheduling. I personally like block scheduling because I could (but most often dont) do my homework the day I get it. That way, if I need assistance I can ask a my teacher for help and still hand it in on time. PhorkPhace 03:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block scheduling —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.227.28 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Block scheduling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123143800/http://www.virginia.edu:80/insideuva/2006/08/block_scheduling.html to http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2006/08/block_scheduling.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]