Search News


Browse Archives

News

Students Prefer Intensive Courses

March 28, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As for-profit higher education has attracted more students, many in nonprofit higher education have wondered about which qualities of the for-profit sector are worth considering for adoption and which aren’t. That was part of the impetus for a study conducted at the University of Texas at Austin on how students respond to “intensive” courses – those taught on a tighter than normal schedule, with more class time each week, but fewer weeks. Such courses are common in for-profit higher education and online higher education, but are far less common at traditional, residential institutions.

The study found – even controlling for factors that can make such comparisons difficult – that students give significantly better ratings of course effectiveness for these intensive courses than regular courses. Results were presented this week at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

The researchers who did the work -- John Kucsera, Dawn M. Zimmaro and Avani G. Trivedi of the UT Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment -- said that their review of the literature found considerable evidence that student learning outcomes are comparable in intensive and regularly scheduled courses. So they set out to find if students felt equally good about the courses in both formats.

Given the variables in the success of any course, Texas is a good place for such studies because of its size. The researchers were able to find 130 recent cases where the same instructor taught the same course in both a traditional 15-week semester and a shorter intensive period of 9 or 11 weeks. Texas uses a student evaluation form for courses, and the study compared the courses taught in the same ways. In addition, the researchers controlled for class size – generally smaller classes get higher ratings and the intensive courses are smaller.

Instructor ratings ended up being the same for intensive and regular courses, when all the controls were added. (Without the controls, the instructors did better with the intensive model.) But the course rating was significantly higher, on average, for the intensive courses, even when controlling for class size.

This suggests that the intensive courses not only provide as much learning as traditional schedules, but may be more popular with students. Kucsera said this suggested that colleges might want to do more research on why these courses appear to be more successful and to consider offering more of them.

One researcher in the audience speculated that in intensive courses, there is more “bonding” between professor and students than in regular courses. Even if the professor and students would have spent the same total amount of time over a semester, the shortened period builds relationships and adds to the closeness of the experience.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Students Prefer Intensive Courses

  • "Students Prefer Intensive Courses"
  • Posted by Eric Grosse , Dean, ACademic Development & Training at Strayer University on March 28, 2008 at 7:35am EDT
  • I wonder if the study controlled for the level of the course taught (undergraduate vs. graduate) as well as by academic program. We have found that under-prepared students don't do nearly as well in the intensive courses and therefore encourage them to consider our longer course formats.

  • Posted by Judith on March 28, 2008 at 8:05am EDT
  • "Students prefer. . . " "students prefer. . ." Many students would prefer to be handed a grade without the bother of buying books, going to class, or doing any work. When did education turn into WalMart?

  • Posted by Sawsan on March 28, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • I also wonder whether it makes a difference to control for how many courses or other obligations are being juggled in measuring learning outcomes/experience in "intensive" versus "traditional" format. I would assume that more focused attention on fewer commitments produces better results (this is true for me as a teacher and researcher), and a student probably carries fewer full courses in a shorter term.

  • Posted by Steven at University of Toronto on March 28, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • I have known more than a few students who were taking 125% and 150% of a course load.

    When we make higher education a road to credentials and a better job, people will be willing to do what it takes to get into that job faster.

  • Posted by Anne Strohm , Adjunct Professor, Mathematics at Austin Community College on March 28, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • Some courses and some students are not well suited to the shorter sessions. Many of my colleagues prefer teaching 5.5 week sessions in the summer as it allows them to take half of the summer off for vacation.

    In my own experience, the short sessions are too intense for students trying to learn new material that must be retained to be built on in future semesters. When I was a student, the only short session courses I took were those that I knew I would be able to do a complete brain dump immediately after finals.

    Yes, the short courses are great if all the student needs is a review of previous material, but it's the rare student that will actually assimilate any new material presented.

  • Posted by Fred Stielow , Dean of Libraries at American Military University on March 28, 2008 at 9:45am EDT
  • Certainly bears out our experiences. Pedagogical challenge is what courses can be credibly run in shorter, intensive periods--History, philosophy are typically less scaleable by their nature than political science, sociology...

    Student empowerment to drive scheduling also seems inline with the Web Era. And not that disimilar to the birth of the University, when students hired faculty and would even pull up stakes to start new schools in different cities.

  • Students
  • Posted by Pat Lees on March 28, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • Students are customers - that is why it matters. Who decided that adults learn best in 50 min intervals, every other day? Pat

  • Ratings?
  • Posted by Gadfly on March 28, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • "The study found – even controlling for factors that can make such comparisons difficult – that students give significantly better ratings of course effectiveness for these intensive courses than regular courses."

    I don't give a rat's ass whether students rated something better, and it should not be anyones concern. If someone were able to draw a straight line from how students rated something to how well they actually learned something then I might be impressed. High ratings do not necessarily translate to subject learned. The high ratings are more than likely an acknowledgement that they spend fewer weeks in class so they have more time left over for shopping, facebook and ipods.

    An objective measure of whether they learned better than in the traditonal way is what interests me. Show me a well designed, rational study that measures learning and don't quote me what students like. People, students especially, are notoriously self serving!

  • intensity for its own sake
  • Posted by JamesOTB , Managing Editor at The Atlantic Council of the United States on March 28, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • As a student, I vastly preferred summer courses, crammed into a four week period, to the semester-long variants. In my own case, at least, that had nothing to do with “bonding” but rather with the intensity itself. Taking a course over a 15-week period, along with five or six other classes, simply felt watered down in comparison to taking two courses for a month. The latter format simply concentrates the mind and lessens distractions. It also disincentivized procrastination in studying and, especially, writing papers.

  • Related research and networks
  • Posted by Tom Flint , Director of Accreditation at Kaplan University on March 28, 2008 at 10:50am EDT
  • The Commission on Accelerated Programs (www.capnetwork.org) which is affiliated with Regis University (CO) and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (www.cael.org) has been focused on accelerated ("intensive") formats for years. Raymond Wlodkowski's multi-institution study that compared traditional with accelerated formats (same courses, same instructors) found the formats equally effective in terms of student learning achieved (CAEL published this study in its journal). Higher ed would benefit if much more would be published about colleges that adopt accelerated formats ("block" scheduling, or one-at-a-time-coursetaking) not just with adult students but with traditionally-aged students--in particular, the three well-known examples outside the for-profit sector: Colorado College, Cornell College (IA), and Evergreen State College (WA). If in general the formats are equally effective, then why not permit students to select their preference? The same question applies to online learning. Not every student is best served by alternative formats, but it is unreasonable to conclude for that reason that students should have no say about their preferences.

  • Interesting - What was the name of the study?
  • Posted by D. Lenier Anderson on March 28, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • Having taught technically-oriented classes both traditionally and in intensive formats I have observed that the frequency of the class (up to 12 hours a week) tends to improve student performance. If the material is being "refreshed" every other day, student retention is superior to being "refreshed" once a week.
    Students covering the same material in 2-3 months 2-3 times a week intensively routinely outperform students covering the same material 4-5 months 1 time a week.

  • Was study quantitative?
  • Posted by David Anderson on March 28, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • Be nice to know which research methodology was used.

  • Appropriate quote
  • Posted by Dr. RingDing on March 28, 2008 at 11:25am EDT
  • Testing What?
    By John V. Lombardi

    http://www.insidehighered.com/views/blogs/reality_check/testing_what

    "The least useful testing, of course, is indirect measurements where we poll our students and ask them how they feel about their education. The very popular NSSE surveys are a prime example of this kind of test. We know that students who feel good about their education may have had a good learning experience, but absent a test of their actual academic achievement, we really don’t know what they learned as they enjoyed the learning process. Also, asking people whether they think they studied hard or think they had a good interaction with their professor, among other questions of this type, tells us about customer satisfaction, but it doesn’t tell us much of anything about what students learn. This is reminiscent of student evaluation of teaching, a process that has almost nothing to do with learning but much to do with enjoyment and perception. We know what the student learned in class when we give a rigorous test that asks questions about the material. If the student passes the test, we know what the student learned. The relationship between enjoyment or satisfaction and learning is tenuous at best."

  • Students are customers?
  • Posted by J. Green , Doctoral Student at Marhsall University on March 28, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • "Students are customers — that is why it matters."

    That statement, in and of itself, is troubling. The decision to pursue an education is not the same as the choice between Coke or Pepsi. It requires characteristics beyond financial renumeration; including but not limited to, commitment, active engagement, etc. Students are not simply paying for knowledge or credentials, though many seem to see it that way. They're paying for access and opportunity.

    The commodification of higher ed is a depressing trend. There are some aspects of life that cannot and should not be reduced to an economic equation. Students are not "customers" or "consumers" to be "value added," a term that reduces students themselves to a commodity. If fact, such lingo is downright demeaning.

    None of this is to say that student suggestions and evaluations should be ignored. Rather we should allot them their proper weight and consideration. Their input is valuable, but it's important to remember that their perceptions are also limited. As a student myself, I certainly have opinions about how my professors teach, but I also realize that I have less knowledge and experience than they do. This is what we pay educators for, their knowledge and expertise of the learning process.

  • Duh...
  • Posted by Shash on March 28, 2008 at 12:20pm EDT
  • Long semesters, like eight-hour work shifts, are based on some outdated model that was contrived before the invention of the computer (including the laptop) and the software that accompanies it.

  • To find research studies
  • Posted by Tom Flint , Director of Accreditation at Kaplan University on March 28, 2008 at 12:50pm EDT
  • Go to www.capnetwork.org, select the 'Publications' module from the menu on the left, then scroll down the page to the Center for the Study of Accelerated Learning of Regis University. Some of this work has been supported by the Lumina Foundation.

  • Research related to short term intensive courses
  • Posted by Roslyn Wallace , Coordinator Institutional Planning & Assessment at Austin Community College on March 28, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • In the late 90's, our college conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of the short, intensive courses we were just beginning to offer. We administered a pre and post survey to students enrolled in and faculty teaching these courses. Additionally, we examined other variables including course grades, withdrawal rates, etc.
    "This study suggests ACC should offer more 8-week classes, and it suggests the format is
    appropriate for some students, some faculty, and some courses; perhaps success is determined by the mix. As with all courses, faculty, deans, program coordinators, advisors and counselors each play a part in "putting together courses"--scheduling classes, assigning instructors, designing curriculum, and assisting students with class selection. Each of these tasks is a
    particularly important part of "putting together" the 8-week courses. The right mix leads to success for students and satisfaction for faculty, and provides the community expanded access to educational opportunities."

    This is the link to the full report: http://www.austincc.edu/oiepub/pubs/studies/8wk-course.pdf

  • This sould have been obvious
  • Posted by dorothy on March 28, 2008 at 1:15pm EDT
  • As someone with experience with 16-week semesters, 12-week quarters, and 4-week block course schedules I would suggest someone study the effect of plain old fatigue on the longer terms. Many years ago as a student I found it hard to stay equally focused all the way through a semester term. Although I teach younger (12-15 year old) students now, they seem to have a similar reaction. There is also the factor of course load: just like you spend less money if you have to pay it back sooner, students register for fewer classes at a time when they are more intensive.

  • Posted by Anita on March 28, 2008 at 2:45pm EDT
  • Interesting study. But this study defines "intensive" as 9-11 weeks, which doesn't seem terribly intensive to me, just a quicker pace compared to a 15 week semester.

    I've taught under quarter (10 weeks) and semester systems (15 weeks). Additionally, I have taught 3 week courses and 1 day courses (with follow-up). These are intensive courses!

    Would like to see research for courses that range in 1 day to 5 week periods.

  • If it's Tuesday it must be War and Peace
  • Posted by David , prof emeritus at USC on March 28, 2008 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Let us remember that some students are probably suffering from the Long-Term Sesame Street Syndrome, unable to sustain concentration on anything for several months, let alone a lifetime as professors do. Still, those who favor "intensive learning" seem mainly to be considering the length of class sessions. Maybe computers (laptop or not) and software speed up some learning, but The Brothers Karamazov is still a thousand pages and students need time to think about and experience its intricacies and pleasures. Not all courses are informational how-to's. In some, you must be steeped, not merely dipped.

  • What about financial aid?
  • Posted by Alex , Assistant Professor on March 28, 2008 at 3:30pm EDT
  • I did a year and a half at a for-profit school that offered 7 week courses. I actually kind of enjoyed the format. We got the same number of contact hours as a regular semester course. However, there was a US Dept. of Education rule stipulating that if students are getting financial aid the courses must be 8 weeks, not 7. (Disclaimer: I am not an administrator, I'm just repeating what I was told, which may or may not be accurate, given all the problems that seem to plague for-profit higher ed.) The result was some scheduling legerdemain where everybody had one extra hour of class on the last day of the session, and that last day of the session was declared to be the first day of week 8.

    I guess they could have also just gone over to a real 8 week schedule, but then you'd either have to go with no break between sessions (no way) or go to 5 sessions per year instead of 6.

    Now I'm at a state school on the quarter system, and most of our students are commuters. In some ways I think that a shorter session with fewer classes to juggle might actually make more sense for our students, given their work and family responsibilities.

    Regarding whether students like it, well, if there is valid research showing that students learn as much either way (I don't know enough about the research to opine on the validity, so this statement is just for the sake of argument) then why not go with whatever format they like better? Just as much learning, and happier students? Sounds fine to me. (Assuming, of course, that the research results are valid...)

  • Faculty Development
  • Posted by Barbara Millis , Director, Excellence in Teaching Program at University of Nevada, Reno on March 28, 2008 at 4:00pm EDT
  • In the late 1970s, 1980s, my husband and I taught for nine years with the University of Maryland University College overseas in Asia on military installations. Our courses for U. S. military service personnel and their family members met two nights a week for three hours for eight weeks. The experience was fabulous! We never lowered standards. Writing assignments were due at the first weekly class meeting, giving students time to focus during the weekend hours, and we did nothing but grade during the week so we could return them the second class meeting. Students had prompt feedback before submitting their next assignments, and we had the weekend free to explore wonderful countries such as Korea, Japan, Guam, and the Philippines. The point is, of course, that this anecdotal experience supports the research: incredible learning can occur during a shorter intense time and students love the constant interactions and quick feedback. I think the speculation about "bonding" is on target. I have never felt closer to students than during those nine years overseas.

  • So how do they test?
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on March 28, 2008 at 4:20pm EDT
  • Dr. Ringding and others have asked important, pointed questions; is this about student learning or self-report consumer satisfaction?

    Most important to most "consumers" - how will your physician, lawyer, airline pilot, dentist, accountant, etc. "test" ten years after they begin practice?

    Will the information from short, intense sessions stay with a person beyond the final exam? Beyond graduation? Beyond the MCAT? Beyond the bar exam?

  • Posted by D.A. on March 28, 2008 at 4:50pm EDT
  • To the list of colleges using intensive block formats add Tusculum in Tennessee and Spalding in Louisville, KY. As to where the 50 minute block comes from, it rolled into higher ed from the models in the Carneigie high-school unit. It was, in reality, more tied to the creation of a standard faculty unit of effort for what became TIAA CREF than anything to do with student learning. The bottom line of this whole discussion is that traditional undergraduate college course settings are the only remaining post-secondary education realm in the country that hangs onto childhood scheduling and delivery models. We really need to think about that, as well as what real meaning the "3 credit paradigm" has any more. Oh, we may be the only setting that loves to belittle our students and their interests and desires. But, it is useful to think of them not as customers but rather as clients. That is a whole different relationship, but it does include appropriate respect for their needs and wishes and opinions. Gee...did I cover everything... :)

  • The Raw and the Cooked
  • Posted by Thatcher on March 30, 2008 at 10:25pm EDT
  • Dr. Andrew Weil says: For optimum health consume a mix of raw and cooked vegetables. My guess--educated and uneducated--is that students need a mix of long and short semesters.

    Do teachers? Works for me.

  • For that matter . . .
  • Posted by Thatcher on April 3, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • I think we consider adding to the mix longer-range courses--courses that span, say, two long semesters or even a whole year, or 2, 3, or 4 years! and that integrate technology, class meetings spread out over time, and other courses or disciplines. Make it a highly recommended "overlap" option for programs of study. It might be comparably popular as short, intensive courses, and comparably effective pedagogically, that is, effective ingredients of the mix.