Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

student success, grades, and withdrawal rates for accelerated (6 weeks) and nonaccelerated
classes (16 weeks). In only one instance was the outcome worse for the accelerated classes
(withdrawal rates were higher for a 6-week cosmetology classes than for the same classes offered
in 16 weeks). Otherwise, for each discipline, there was either no difference between the
accelerated classes and the longer classes, or the accelerated classes were superior.
Levels of Learning
An interesting issue is whether accelerated classes are better or worse than traditional classes
with respect to higher-order thinking skills. If we use Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, for example, do
students under and accelerated system perform as well as student in a traditional system when it
comes to the application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation of what they have learned An early
study by Waechter (1966) suggested that the accelerated students did not understand the material
as well as traditional students. A more recent study by Petrowsky (1996) reinforces this notion.
The students in an accelerated macroeconomic course performed worse on a comprehensive
exam than the students in the traditional course. The comprehensive exam required that the
students comprehend and analyze the material.
In contrast to the above findings, several studies have reported a different set of results. A
study by Collins (2005) suggests that higher-level cognitive skills are not compromised by
accelerated learning. Collins used the Learning Environment Preferences (LEP) instrument, a
test that measures cognitive complexity, and studied cohort-based and noncohort-based
accelerated programs. She compared pre-program LEP scores with post-program LEP scores and
found no difference in pre-and post-scores using both quantitative and qualitative analyses. As
noted above, Wlodkowski et al. (2000) found that faculty rated accelerated students higher on
critical thinking compared to students in more traditional courses. Finally, Seamon (2004), in a
psychology of learning course, found that students in an accelerated class (three weeks)
performed better on post-test questions that assessed “higher order” learning than students in a
semester class. Interestingly, this difference was not maintained over a long retention interval
(three years), but this finding is tentative because the sample sizes were very small after such a
long delay.
Course Withdrawal and Degree Completion
Geltner and Logan (2001) examined withdrawal rates for 6-week, 8-week, and 16-week classes.
Their evidence clearly showed that the accelerated classes yielded fewer student withdrawals
than the longer classes. Wlodkowski, Mauldin, and Gahn (2001), reporting on “persistence”
(degree completion), compared students enrolled in an accelerated program with students in a
traditional program. Using a historical analysis, they showed that, given a sufficient amount of
time (six years), there was no difference in graduation rates between the two types of programs
(although the accelerated students did graduate sooner, which was the intent of the program). In
another analysis of current students, Wlodkowski, Mauldin, and Gahn did not find any difference
between the accelerated and traditional programs in the proportion of students who withdrew
(i.e., the percentage of students who did not return following the end of the fall term). In a
follow-up study, Wlodkowski, Mauldin, and Campbell (2002) identified several factors that
influenced student withdrawal from college. These influences were not much different for
accelerated and traditional programs. Mostly, the reasons for dropping out focused on money
(tuition costs, lack of financial aid) and time (conflict between job and studies, home
42