2010College TeachingRequires access

Comparing the Effectiveness of Intensive and Traditional Courses

John Kucsera, Dawn Zimmaro

Open publisher page 89 citations

Abstract

The present study investigated differences in the effectiveness of instructors from a variety of departments who taught the same course in both intensive and traditional formats within the same year, while controlling for many confounding variables. Results indicated that intensive courses did not significantly differ from traditional courses in overall instructor ratings on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness when confounding variables were taken into account. Conversely, intensive courses received significantly higher overall course ratings on student evaluations than did traditional courses, even after controlling for class size and probable grade in course. These findings provide further evidence that negative beliefs concerning intensive courses may be unjustified, and intensive courses may be as or more effective than those presented in traditional formats.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The present study investigated differences in the effectiveness of instructors from a variety of departments who taught the same course in both intensive and traditional formats within the same year, while controlling for many confounding variables. Results indicated that intensive courses did not significantly differ from traditional courses in overall instructor ratings on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness when confounding variables were taken into account. Conversely, intensive courses received significantly higher overall course ratings on student evaluations than did traditional courses, even after controlling for class size and probable grade in course. These findings provide further evidence that negative beliefs concerning intensive courses may be unjustified, and intensive courses may be as or more effective than those presented in traditional formats.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 89 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The present study investigated differences in the effectiveness of instructors from a variety of departments who taught the same course in both intensive and traditional formats within the same year, while controlling for many confounding variables. Results indicated that intensive courses did not significantly differ from traditional courses in overall instructor ratings on student evaluations of teaching effectiveness when confounding variables were taken into account. Conversely, intensive courses received significantly higher overall course ratings on student evaluations than did traditional courses, even after controlling for class size and probable grade in course. These findings provide further evidence that negative beliefs concerning intensive courses may be unjustified, and intensive courses may be as or more effective than those presented in traditional formats.

Key concepts: Confounding, Class (philosophy), Psychology, Intensive care, Class size, Variety (cybernetics), Medical education, Mathematics education

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparing the Effectiveness of Intensive and Traditional Courses — Research Paper | ScholarLens