Adopting an Intensive Graduate Curricula: Exploring Student Outcomes and Satisfaction Kenneth Harwood, Associate Professor of Clinical Research & Leadership and of Physical Therapy and Healthcare Sciences (SMHS); Paige McDonald, Assistant Professor of Clinical Research & Leadership (SMHS); Joan Butler, Program Director and Assistant Professor of Clinical Research & Leadership (SMHS); Daniela Drago, Assistant Professor of Clinical Research & Leadership (SMHS); Alexandra Rosenberg, Research Assistant in Clinical Research & Leadership (SMHS); and Karen Schlumpf, Instructor in Clinical Research and Leadership (SMHS) Background & Context Analysis Results (continued) Intensive courses (IC) are defined as traditional (semester or quarter equivalents) courses presented in an accelerated manner (Kucsera & Zimmaro, 2010) Frequency of ICs increasing in higher education (Daniel, 2000; Davies, 2006; Hall et al., 2012) Advantages: More effective student interaction (Daniel, 2000), convenient (Daniel, 2000), and more effective use of time (Ovalle et al., 2016) Disadvantages: ICs require greater concentration in shorter time (Daniel, 2000; Mishra et al., 2015) and increase student-reported stress (Anastasi, 2007) Equivocal results for test scores: Evidence suggests student test scores are comparable (Daniel, 2000) or slightly higher for ICs vs. traditional courses Waechter, 1967; Van Scyoc & Gleason, 1993; Daniel, 2000 found no difference; Petrowsky (1996) found students in ICs performed worse on comprehensive exams. Equivocal results for Student Satisfaction ratings: Wloskowski et al. (1999) found overall attitudes were positive; Whillier et al. (2013) found equivalent ratings; and Mishra et al. (2015) found students mostly dissatisfied No literature on effect on student satisfaction or grades for ICs in graduate courses and online courses. Student data de-identified prior to analyses Descriptive statistics were used to describe student population, student satisfaction scores and course grades. Student satisfaction ratings were dichotomized to “Low” (1-3/5) and “High” (4 or 5/5). Chi-square analyses were run to determine differences in evaluation items. Independent t-tests were used to determine the differences in the final course and final project grades for each course. Table 2. Chi-Square results for student course evaluation ratings Analysis of evaluations by individual courses yielded no significant findings except in one HCQ course for “Intellectual Challenge” and “Overall Instructor Rating”. Results Student Sample: 168 health sciences students, 35.1% in the Clinical Research Administration (CRA) program, 42.9% in Health Care Quality (HCQ) program, and 22.0% in Regulatory Affairs (RAFF) program. Figure 1. Percent of student age categories by program of study Aims Conclusions The aims of the study were: To compare student learning outcomes for equitable courses in traditional versus intensive formats in online, graduate level Health Sciences courses. To compare student course evaluation (satisfaction) ratings for equitable courses in traditional versus intensive formats in online, graduate level Health Sciences courses. Findings confirm no significant difference in student success between traditional and intensive online delivery models Findings confirm equitable end-of-course evaluation ratings between traditional and intensive online delivery models Findings suggest that for non-traditional learners within a graduate online program of study, ICs should be considered. Future longitudinal research is required to further investigate student and instructor experiences in ICs. Methods Study Design: This was a retrospective, observational study. A convenience sample was selected from three health sciences graduate programs that transitioned from 15 week curriculum to a 7 week intensive course delivery model. Course selection: Seven courses were selected for comparison based upon the following inclusion criteria: Same course in traditional and intensive models Same faculty Similar/same student final projects References Anastasi, JS. (2007). Full-semester and abbreviated summer courses: An evaluation of student performance. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 19-22. Daniel, EL. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal. 34(2), 298-306. Davies, W. Martin. (2006) "Intensive teaching formats: A review." Issues in Educational Research 16(1) 1-20. Hall MV, Wilson LA, Sanger MJ. Student success in intensive versus traditional introductory college chemistry courses. J Chem Educ [Internet]. 2012 June 25;89(9):1109-1113. Kucsera, JV & Zimmaro, DM. (2010). Comparing the effectiveness of intensive and traditional Courses. College Teaching. 58(2), 62-68. Messina, RC. (1996, June). Power package: An alternative to traditional course scheduling. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396787. Mishra, Sita, & Rajendra Nargundkar. 2015. An analysis of intensive mode pedagogy in management education in india. The International Journal of Educational Management 29, (4): 408-419. Ovalle MDM, Combita ALF. A comparison between students’ behaviour and performance during regular and intensive control systems courses with and without laboratory time. In: IEEE EDUCON Global Engineering Education Conference; 2016 Apr 10-13; Abu Dhabi, UAE. p. 498-502. Petrowsky, MC. (1996, July). The two-week summer macroeconomics course: Success or failure? Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396779 Scott, PA & Conrad, CF. (1991, March). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED337087 Van Scyoc, LJ & Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or intensive course lengths: A comparison of outcomes in economics learning. The Journal of Economic Education. 24(1), 15-22. Whillier, S., & Lystad, R. P. (2013). Intensive mode delivery of a neuroanatomy unit: Lower final grades but higher student satisfaction. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(5), 286-293. doi:10.1002/ase.1358 Wlodkowski RJ. Accelerated learning in colleges and universities. New Dir Adult Contin. Educ [Internet]. 2003 Spring; 97(97):5-15. Waechter, RF. (1967). A comparison of achievement and retention by college junior students in an earth science course after learning under massed and spaced conditions. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International Table 1. Independent t-Test results for student learning Analysis of evaluations by individual courses yielded no significant differences. Measures Evidence of student learning: Final Assignment/similar assignment. Final assignments were scored using similar rubrics. Final Grade. Grades converted from letter grade to numerical equivalent. Evidence of student satisfaction: Student satisfaction based on four end-of-course evaluation items: “Overall Course Rating”, “How Much Learned”, “Intellectual Challenge”, and “Overall Instructor Rating”. Items rated on 5 point Likert scale.