This article has been retrieved  times since September 19, 1999

Education Policy Analysis Archives
Volume 7 Number 29	September 19, 1999	ISSN 1068-2341

---

A peer-reviewed 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 Carolina-Chapel Hill James Schreiber Indiana University Abstract             This study examined the effects of a tri-schedule on the academic achievement of students in a high school. The tri-schedule consists of traditional, 4x4 block, and hybrid schedules running at the same time in the same high school. Effectiveness of the schedules was determined from the state mandated test 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 and cognitive skill index and GPA as covariates. For reading and language, there was no statistically significant difference in test results. There was a statistical difference mathematics-computation. Block mathematics is an ideal format for obtaining more credits in mathematics, but the block format does little for mathematics achievement and conceptual understanding. The results have content specific implications for schools, administrations, and school boards who are considering block scheduling adoption.

The past decade has provided schools with many opportunities to reform education at a local level. One reform movement that has gained in popularity in the past few years is block scheduling. More than fifty percent 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 reform often view block scheduling as a way to extend the traditional periods of uninterrupted 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 States, teachers, parents, administrators, and university professors are seeking evidence for the impact of block scheduling on student achievement. As reformers have sought better ways to increase student achievement in the high schools, the question of time used for instruction has become a major focus. Literature Review             There have been many debates at the district and school levels about the perceived benefits of block scheduling. The results of studies have supported and denounced the implementation of block scheduling. Previous studies have reported favorable teacher attitudes and perceptions about block scheduling though the use of surveys (Pullen, Morse, & Varrella, 1998; Sessoms, 1995; Tanner, 1996). Other studies have reported on the relationship between block scheduling and student grade point averages (Buckman, King & Ryan, 1995; Edwards 1993; Holmberg, 1996; Schoenstein, 1995). These studies focused mainly on trends in grade point averages over time of implementation. Mixed results have been reported on state standardized test 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 (Carroll, 1995; Monroe, 1989; Sessoms, 1995). The findings of these studies have been inconsistent, sometimes reporting gains for students on block scheduling, sometimes reporting no differences, and sometimes reporting losses compared with students on traditional scheduling. Several large-sample studies, for example, have reported results in multiple subject areas. Hess, Wronkovich, and Robinson (1998) and Wronkovich, Hess, and Robinson (1997) used "retired" copies of SAT II Achievement Tests. Using the Otis-Lennon Scholastic Aptitude Test as a covariate, they conducted regression analyses on pre- and post-tests. The study concluded that there were no significant differences in student achievement between 4x4 semester and traditional schedule types in geometry and history, and a significant difference in biology and English with 4x4 semester schedule students achieving higher scores than the traditional schedule.             In a second study done by The College Board (1998), tests were examined for student achievement differences in four subject areas: 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 class time (meeting everyday for more than 60 minutes) scored significantly higher than students in a traditional schedule, and both fall and spring 4x4 schedules. Students who took the AP US history exam in both the traditional and extended traditional format outperformed those in the 4x4 block schedules. Students enrolled in an extended traditional 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 time was spent on a daily basis learning any subject. Moreover, the results reported the effects of the traditional, extended traditional, and the 4x4 schedules, but did not include other types of block scheduling (e.g., block 8, alternating block, trimester, or hybrid).             Cobb, Abate, and Baker (1999) used a post-test only, matched pairs design to evaluate standardized achievement in mathematics, reading, and writing. The researchers found that block students performed significantly less well on the mathematics standardized test. There were no differences in achievement on the standardized reading and writing test scores. The literature is consistent on the inconsistency of achievement of students within the block schedule.             Most studies have examined students after they have switched to a new schedule. Few studies have directly compared student achievement within the same school utilizing different schedules. The purpose of this paper is to add to the literature base a study which investigated student achievement on standardized 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 effects of block scheduling are needed if research is to adequately inform reform movements and decisions. Methods Context             In the spring of 1994, discussions were held on changing the traditional day schedule at South Springfield High School (SSHS). The change to a 4x4 alternative schedule was proposed after five years of study and consideration. However, a compromise tri-schedule was implemented rather than a 4x4-block schedule. The tri-schedule included three schedules types (traditional, 4x4-block, and hybrid) running at the same time during the school day. The traditional schedule consisted of six 55-minute classes that were taught for the entire school year. The 4x4-block schedule consisted of four 87-minute classes that were taught in one semester. The hybrid schedule consisted of three traditional and two block classes taught each day.             South Springfield High School is a large, four-year school located in a medium-sized college town in the Midwest. The student 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 classes. Table 1 Descriptive Information for Classes under Block and Traditional Formats Schedule Descriptors Traditional Hybrid 4X4 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 7830 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,b 83% 83%b 75% Defined as the total teaching contact hours divided by the total class time during a day. Teacher utilization rate was the same for all teachers due to contract and union regulations.

Students             During their freshman year, the students were randomly assigned to a block or traditional schedule. Due to scheduling concerns with special education students and Advanced Placement classes, students were then asked to switch into different classes than originally assigned. This resulted in the formation 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 distributed classes, student choice was ultimately limited to certain class formats. State Mandated Test of Basic Skills             The Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational 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 school. 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, language, and mathematics. The sub-areas of reading are comprehension and vocabulary. The sub-areas of language are mechanics and expression. The sub-areas of mathematics are concepts and applications, and computation. In addition to these sub-areas, each area has a total score and a battery score for the entire test. For the purposes of this study, only scores on the sub-areas are reported since the total areas are composed of the two individual sub-areas, and the battery is a composite of all six sub-areas. Norm Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores and the Cognitive Skills Index (CSI) were used from the result printout for analysis. The NCE and CSI scores were norm-referenced. The NCE scores (1-99) were based upon an equal-interval scale. Using NCE scores allowed us to compare scores among schedule groups. The CSI describes an individual's overall performance on the ISTEP+ aptitude test. It compares the student's cognitive ability with that of students 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 hours per day. Each section of the test was timed. Table 2 shows the descriptive information about the students who took the ISTEP+ test. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Students Taking ISTEP+ Schedule Type N 1997-98 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 the SPSS computer statistical software package. Because it was impossible to obtain a randomized 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 skills index) and cumulative GPA as simultaneous multiple covariates. Results Reading             Both of the sub-areas for reading were analyzed and determined to be non-significant by schedule type, and thus their results are not reported. Using reading-total as an example, CSI and GPA provided significant 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 reading-total (F[2,331] = 1.470, p = .231 ). Language             Both of the sub-areas for language were also analyzed and determined to be non-significant by schedule type, and thus their results are not reported. Using language-total 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 language-total (F[2,331] = .679, p = .508 ). Mathematics             The ANCOVA results for mathematics-computation were significant. The covariates CSI and GPA provided significant regression 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 type (Table 3) was found (F[2,331] = 4.380, p = .013). Table 4 shows the unadjusted mean scores for the mathematics-computation section of the ISTEP+ based upon schedule type. Traditional schedule students scored significantly higher on mathematics-computation than block and hybrid students (Table 5). The traditional and block students had a mean difference of 4.175 (p = .006) and the traditional and hybrid students had a mean difference of 4.181 (p = .022). Table 3 ANCOVA for Dependent Variable Mathematics-computation Source 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 Mathematics-computation by Schedule Schedule 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: CSI = 113.9819, CUMGPA = 2.9750. Table 5 Pairwise Comparisons for Dependent Variable Mathematics-computation (I) Schedule (J) Schedule Mean Difference (I-J) 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] = 41.867, p < .001 ), respectively. No main effect for schedule type was found (F[2,331] = 1.456, p = .235), thus tables are not provided due to the non-significant results. Even though three schedules existed at the high school and all students were enrolled in one of three schedules, students took mathematics in either 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 schedules. Mathematics was not taught in a hybrid format; only a block or traditional format. Thus a statistical ANCOVA test was performed on mathematics-computation separating the students based upon their mathematics class format. The covariates CSI and GPA, 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 mathematics class format was not found (F[1,332] = 0.018 , p = .892). Table 6 ANCOVA with Dependent Variable Mathematics-computation for All Sophomores Source 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

Discussion Reading and Language             There is no schedule that is significantly 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 language portions of the ISTEP+ were comparable. In essence, the schedule type did not influence 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) reported that there were no differences in student achievement on reading and writing standardized test scores. In terms of the development of reading and language skills, as long as students are taking classes for the same amount of time each year, reading and language scores might be expected to remain the same. Perhaps all classes that a student might take under any schedule format, reinforce reading and language skills 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 curriculum and are thus reinforced across all classes. Mathematics             The traditional schedule seems better for the understanding and retention of mathematical computation as determined from ISTEP+ scores for sophomores. Some studies have reported that block scheduling was desirable 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 due to a schedule change might influences mathematics learning. Does taking a mathematics 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 mathematics-computation based upon mathematics format of all students taking the ISTEP+. The non-significant results indicate that the mathematics format taken by students does not have an impact on their standardized mathematics test scores. Thus, schedule type was not a factor in the test scores for sophomores even though parts of the curriculum 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. Initial glance of the unadjusted means might indicate that the traditional students actually did better. This was not the result. Another issue that has been discussed as an advantage 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, proponents of block scheduling used this argument to bolster support for block scheduling. 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 that took more than one mathematics class their freshman year. Of those students 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 students had the opportunity to take the mathematics classes in either a block or traditional format. Twenty-two 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 mathematics-computation for those hybrid students who 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 same on the ISTEP+ mathematics section as those students in a traditional format after adjusting for CSI and GPA. This result indicates that taking more than one mathematics class does not increase a student's mathematics achievement. Thus, the argument that block 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 curriculum in the mathematics classes due to the shorter class hours in the block format. Table 7 ANCOVA with Dependent Variable Mathematics-computation for Hybrid Sophomores Source 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                 Moreover, those hybrid students who took more than one math class their freshman year scored similarly when they took mathematics 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 mathematics for a longer period of time every day for an entire year. Even though these students 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 mathematics is best learned and understood under a daily format. Also, more time spent on learning mathematics concepts in an extended period seems to reinforce those concepts. In essence, block mathematics is good for taking more mathematics classes and obtaining more graduation credits, but the block format per se does little to increase students' understanding of mathematics.             Another issue is the possible "gap in learning" resulting from a block schedule student taking mathematics his/her first semester freshman year and not taking it again until his/her sophomore year. We were unable to determine the effect of the "gap in learning" associated with the 4x4 block schedule. By looking at the mathematics-computation scores, it would indicate that the "gap in learning" was not a significant factor in mathematics achievement as many 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 mathematics-computation 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 advantageous 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, 1995; 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; Hess, Wronkovich, & Robinson, 1998; The College Board, 1998). Conclusions             This study supports the importance of daily instruction and contact time to student achievement in mathematics as distinct from other academic skills. However, the mechanisms that determine this relationship are less clear, and educational policy makers would be unwise to conclude that one type of schedule is generally better than others independent of how different schedules influence the number and type of courses that students take across the secondary curriculum. More research is needed to address the concern of "time-of- discipline." Does a block schedule improve student achievement even when the total amount of time is decreased within discipline areas? Which academic areas are most negatively and positively effected by the switch to a particular schedule type? Should one schedule be the model for all schools? These are important questions that need to be answered by researchers in different academic areas.

References Bateson, D.J.(1990). Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 233-240. Bevevino, M. M., Snodgrass, D. M., Adams, K. M., & Dengel, J. A. (1998). An educator's guide to block scheduling: Decision making, curriculum design, and lesson planning strategies. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Buckman, D., King, B., and Ryan, S. (1995). Block scheduling: A means to improve school climate. NASSP bulletin, 79 (571), 9-18. 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 evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 104-110, 112-113. 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/epaa/v7n3.html.) Edwards, C. (1993). The 4 X 4 plan. Educational Leadership, 53 (3): 16-19. 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 traditional education: A comparison of grade-point averages and ACT scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Block scheduling and high school mathematics instruction. The Mathematics Teacher, 89, 758-767. Lockwood, S. (1995). Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact of student achievement in Algebra and Geometry. NASSP Bulletin, 79 (575), 102-108. Monroe, M. J. (1989). BLOCK: successful alternative format addressing learner needs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, St. Louis, MO. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services (1996). Blocked scheduled high school achievement: Comparison of 1995 end-of-course test scores for blocked and non-blocked high schools, 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 National Association of Science Teachers, Las Vegas, NV. Queen, 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): 18-21. Sessoms, J. C. (1995). Teachers perceptions of three models of high school block scheduling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Stennett, R. G. & Rachar, B. (1973). Gains in mathematics knowledge in Grade 10 semestered and non-semestered programmes. London, Ontario: London board of Education. (Micromedia Limited Use Microlog order No. ON00775). Tanner, B. M. (1996). Perceived staff needs of teachers in high schools with block schedules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The College Board. (May, 1998). Block schedules and student performance on AP Examinations. Research News, RN-03. 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. (1997). An objective look at math outcomes based on new research into block scheduling. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (593): 32-41. About the Authors William R. Veal Assistant Professor, Science Education The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill CB #3500 Peabody Hall Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3500 (919) 962-9891 (919) 962-1533 Fax Email: wveal@email.unc.edu William Veal is an assistant professor of science education at UNC-Chapel Hill. He taught secondary science in a block schedule in Salt Lake City. His other research interests lie in the development of pedagogical content knowledge in preservice science educators and the implications for teacher education. James Schreiber Indiana University Bloomington, IN James Schreiber is a former high school mathematics teacher, and currently works as Senior Research Associate at the Indiana Center for Evaluation. He has been involved with education at different levels, specifically focusing 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 Archives The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics or 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 85287-0211. (602-965-9644). 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 Carolina— Greensboro Daniel Kallós Umeå University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs- Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak 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 Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Center for Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven scriven@aol.com Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University David D. Williams Brigham Young University   EPAA Spanish Language Editorial Board Associate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodríguez Gómez Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México roberto@servidor.unam.mx Adrián Acosta (México) Universidad de Guadalajara adrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Félix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cádiz felix.angulo@uca.es Teresa Bracho (México) Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica-CIDE bracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (México) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México canalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State University casanova@asu.edu José Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Chicago Eepstein@luc.edu Josué González (U.S.A.) Arizona State University josue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (México) Departamento de Investigación Educativa- DIE/CINVESTAV rkent@gemtel.com.mx       kentr@data.net.mx María Beatriz Luce (Brazil) Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul- UFRGS lucemb@orion.ufrgs.br Javier Mendoza Rojas (México) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México javiermr@servidor.unam.mx Marcela Mollis (Argentina) Universidad de Buenos Aires mmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muñoz García (México) Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México humberto@servidor.unam.mx Angel Ignacio Pérez Gómez (Spain) Universidad de Málaga aiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canadá) OISE/UT, Canada dschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil) Fundação Instituto Brasileiro e Geografia e Estatística simon@openlink.com.br Jurjo Torres Santomé (Spain) Universidad de A Coruña jurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.) University of California, Los Angeles torres@gseisucla.edu    archives   |   abstracts   |   editors   |   board   |   submit   |   comment   |   subscribe   |   search