Continuity Attained Via Block Schedule Flexibility How many times have you heard introductory chemistry students complain about labs having little or nothing to do with the current lecture material? I believe that most professors and students would prefer lab-lecture synchronizatiun; however, scheduling restrictions often prevent desired sequence development. Semester or quarter systems, used by amajority of universities, have designated time slots for both lecture and lab; hence, for example, students A and B may have the lecture a t the same time, hut not the lab, or vice versa. Having served under both of the aforementioned systems, I find the block scheduling system currently used a t the University of Tampa to he superior with regard to flexibility and subsequent eontinuity. A typical block schedule a t UT consists of a daily 3-hr session with lecture and lab facilities simultaneously available. This unique situation enables coverage of material up to a predetermined point where certain principles are then reinforced via an appropriate lab exercise. In addition to lab-lecture synchronization, block scheduling enables lecture diversification. There is ample time for problem-solving sessions and mock tests, permitting assessment of individual and collective weaknesses prior to a formal examination. Time is also available for pre and post exam review. Pre- and post-lab sessions are not held on the same day the lab exercise is performed; thus, labs are not rushed. Active student participation during these sessions is feasible and desirable. I encoursge you to seriously consider adoption of block scheduling. In addition to flexibility, the opportunity for developing strong rapport with students is excellent.
William J. Nixon University of Tampa Tampa. FL 33606
Volume 59
Number 3
March 1982
237
