Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

Some Important Issues
Scott and Conrad (1992) identified several unresolved issues with respect to learning outcomes
and the effectiveness of accelerated education. Since 1992, some of these issues have been more
fully addresses and others have not. This section attempts to summarize what we now know.
Short-Term versus Long-Term Outcomes
A review of the literature by Daniel (2000) concluded that the evidence was clear on the shortterm
benefits of accelerated learning but was inconclusive with regard to long-term outcomes.
The vast majority of studies have shown that students in accelerated classes perform as well as,
and often better than, students in traditional classes on short-term outcome measures (e.g., unit
test, class exercises, exams, homework assignments). With regard to long-term outcomes, most
studies found no difference in performance between accelerated classes and traditional classes on
retention of delayed post-tests (e.g., Seamon, 2004). Some studies have found slightly superior
(but nonsignificant) delayed performance for accelerated classes (Doyle, 1978; Doyle & Yantis,
1977; Doyle, Moursi, & Wood, 1980), but others studies report declines in delayed performance
for students taking the accelerated classes (Petrowsky, 1996; VanScyoc & Gleason, 1993).
Different Student Groups
The literature is clear that different kinds of students choose accelerated classes compared to
more traditional (quarter or semester) classes. Students taking accelerated classes and programs
are generally older, adopt a more experiential style of learning, and are more motivated than
traditional students (Daniel, 2000). What is not so clear is whether the different types of students
benefit more from accelerated learning experiences. One study that provides some useful data on
this issue was conducted by Geltner and Logan (2001). They examined several outcomes from
accelerated classes (success rate, withdrawals, average grades) as a function of gender, ethnicity,
age, first language, student academic goals, enrollment status, and several other student
characteristics. In virtually all categories, the outcomes were better for the accelerated classes (6
weeks) compared to longer-term classes (16 weeks).
Degree of Intensity
The studies that have been done on accelerated education have examined everything from classes
offered in compressed, 2-week time frames to full 17-week semester classes. It is difficult to
extract any clear relationship between the degree of intensity and the level of student learning or
success because studies typically do not examine more than two intensity levels. In a study by
Geltner and Logan (2001), three levels of intensity were investigated (6-week, 8-week, and 16-
week classes), but no reliable trend was reported by these researchers. A more definitive answer
to the question must await further research.
Subject Matter Effects
The studies reported in the literature have examined a wide range of course and disciplines.
Because each study is unique in design and sample, it is difficult to compare subject matter
directly. The pattern of results from different studies is fairly clear, however; across a broad
array of course content, accelerated classes are at least as good as, if not better than, traditional
courses. Geltner and Logan’s (2001) study is unusual in that they compared many disciplines
within the same investigation. These authors examined 50 different disciplines and analyzed
41