A Review Of Time-Shortened Courses Across Disciplines

An important issue related to time-shortened courses is whether they offer a longterm impact on learning. Though limited research comparing the long-term outcomes of intensive versus traditional semester-length courses was located, students in intensive courses tended to retain as much or more knowledge than counterparts in traditional length classes. In a study involving two groups of students in business administration classes, Doyle and colleagues (as cited in Scott, 1991), evaluated achievement in a traditional semester compared to a time-shortened format. Immediately following the course, students in the intensive group scored slightly higher grades. The researchers administered a post-test nine months later and while they found no significant differences across the two classes in terms of their follow-up test scores, they noted that the intensive format group scored slightly higher.

Waechter (1967) studied two groups of students in an earth science class offered in two formats: nine weeks and eighteen weeks. Each class had the same instructors and the same total instruction time. A pre-test and three post-tests were administered, one immediately following the end of the course, the second three months later and the last after four and a half months. The author found no significant differences in the short-term or long-term scores between the two groups. He concluded that the two formats produced equivalent results.

Petrowsky (1996) compared experiences, satisfaction, and academic outcomes in three macroeconomics course offered in traditional 15 week formats versus a two-week summer session. While summer students performed better than traditional format students on unit tests from the first half of the course involving basic recall of material, these students performed worse on comprehensive exams. The comprehensive exams measured the ability of the students to comprehend and analyze material learned during the first week of the course. Summer students also perceived the two week course as more stressful and overall, were less satisfied with it than those in the semester long classes. As a result of these findings, Petrowsky recommended that macroeconomics courses be offered in a traditional 15 week semester.

Finally, Van Scyoc & Gleason (1993) compared traditional versus intensive formats in a microeconomics course. They found students in three week courses performed better on achievement tests than those in traditional semester courses but this advantage disappeared when knowledge retention was measured after the course ended.

Short term

Several studies have found positive short-term outcomes in intensive courses. Education majors took general special education programming in various concentrated time formats. Those in two and three week formats made greater gains than those in five and 15 week formats, and all students indicated that they learned as much or more as in regular format teacher education courses (Lombardi, Meikamp & Wienke, 1992). Caskey (1994) studied two groups of students in an algebra time-shortened and regular semester course -and an accounting courses taught in both formats. She found no significant differences in course grade point average or overall average though the students in the time-shortened format tended to be older. Buzash (1994) found that high school students in an intensive French course tended to show skill improvement equivalent to one college semester during the course. Post-program questionnaires revealed that students gained substantially in skills.