The Effect of Immersion Scheduling on Academic Performance and Students’ Ratings of Instructors

Abstract

During the past decades, little research has investigated the effects of immersion scheduling on the psychology classroom. Therefore, we sought to compare academic performance of students in 2-week immersion psychology courses to that of students in traditional 16-week courses. In Study 1, students who received instruction in a 2-week immersion course significantly outperformed their cohorts in a traditional 16-week course. In order to address potential limitations in the first study, in Study 2, we controlled for individual differences variables (e.g., cumulative grade point average), and results indicated significantly higher academic performance for students in the 2-week immersion course. In both studies, students in the immersion courses consistently evaluated the courses and their instructors significantly higher than those students in the 16-week courses. In light of our results and in contrast to critics, immersion courses may be useful and effective when teaching psychology.

Keywords

immersion learning student learning course evaluations

Between 1995 and 1999, a number of researchers and national committees set to work on efforts to address scheduling and retention issues in secondary as well as higher education (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, 1998; Kojaku, Nunez, & Malizio, 1998; Muraskin, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). As a result, there was a large push for immersion scheduling in both secondary and higher education (Lawerence & McPherson, 2000). The immersion course is defined as an educational schedule, in which students experience one course at a time by engaging in learning activities within extended blocks of time (Petrowsky, 1996; van Scyoc & Gleason, 1993). However, with this push came a backlash by many others who claimed that immersive courses are less effective than traditional formats (e.g., Daniel, 2000; Scott, 2003).

Although immersion scheduling has a history of selective use in higher education and is becoming increasingly popular in some universities (Davies, 2006), a review of the literature revealed a startling absence of rigorous empirical studies addressing academic achievement outcomes, particularly in psychology. As studies have demonstrated that immersion scheduling may increase college retention (e.g., Soldner, Lee, & Duby, 2000), academic self-concept (e.g., Richmond & Krank, 2007), and critical thinking (Burton & Nesbit, 2008; Jonas, Weimer, & Herzer, 2004; Mims, 1983; Richmond & Krank, 2007), we thought it is important to investigate the effects immersion scheduling has on the teaching and learning of psychology.

Currently, there have been only two studies that have specifically investigated the effects of the immersion scheduling in the psychology classroom. Ray and Kirkpatrick (1983) investigated the effects on knowledge and anxiety in two course lengths (15 vs. 3 weeks) for a human sexuality course; interestingly, they found no academic advantage between the two course lengths. In contrast, Anastasi (2007) found across different psychology courses (e.g., memory, research methods, and effective thinking), students in 2- to 5-week immersion courses sometimes had higher academic performance compared to students in traditional 16-week courses. Specifically, Anastasi found that the academic performance in the summer immersion sections only existed in certain courses and certain assignments (e.g., exam scores in a critical thinking course and research methods course). Unfortunately, this research was aggregated across different immersion course formats (e.g., 2, 3, and 5 weeks) and is difficult to assess which type of immersion course improved academic performance. Consequently, we sought to investigate the effect immersion scheduling had across courses, across levels of courses (e.g., first year to senior), and within only one type of immersion format (i.e., 2-week long course with no other course at the same time).

Beyond student academic performance, student ratings of instructors (SRIs) are widely used to determine instructor and course effectiveness (Heckert, Latier, Ringwald, & Silvey, 2006) and can be influenced in part by student engagement (Handlesman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005), professor–student rapport (Berglund et al., 2013; Ryan, Wilson, & Pugh, 2011), course size (Heckert et al., 2006), and course objectives (Gump, 2004). In the immersion literature, Anastasi (2007) is the only study to investigate the impact immersion scheduling may have on one aspect of SRIs. Anastasi found that students perceived the rigor of both immersion and traditional course formats as the same. Unfortunately, Anastasi’s measure of SRIs was a single measure, and the reliability and validity were not reported. Because SRIs may provide an assessment of the intended variables (i.e., course and instructor effectiveness) as well as identify possible mediating and moderating variables such as student engagement, which is important to study within the context of comparing immersion and traditional scheduling formats, we investigated the effects of immersion scheduling on SRIs.

Given the limited research in this area, in two separate studies, we sought to improve this area of research in several ways. First, in the few studies in psychology (e.g., Anastasi, 2007; Ray & Kirkpatrick, 1983), there seems to be conflicting evidence of the efficacy of immersion scheduling, and we sought to clarify these inconsistencies by initially comparing the two schedule formats on academic performance (Study 1) and then replicating this study to check for consistent results (Study 2). Second, in past studies (Anastasi, 2007; Burton & Nesbit, 2008; Richmond & Krank, 2007), 2- to 5-week and 3-week immersion courses were combined. In Studies 1 and 2, we were interested to see whether academic gains could be made in only a 2-week immersion course. Third, Anastasi reported no difference in perceived course rigor but did not report additional ratings from SRIs, so for both Studies 1 and 2, we sought to test whether course format differentially changed SRIs. Finally, in Study 2, we choose to replicate the findings of Study 1 on the effects immersion scheduling had on academic performance.

Based on our review of literature, for both Studies 1 and 2, we were interested in assessing these overarching research questions: (1) Are there academic performance benefits to teaching in a 2-week immersion course over that of teaching in a traditional 16-week course? (2) Are instructors viewed more or less favorably (as measured by SRIs) in a 2-week immersion course when compared to a traditional 16-week course?

Study 1

Method

Participants

There were 155 undergraduate psychology students who participated in this study; 61 students in 2-week immersion courses and 94 students in traditional 16-week courses. Participants were selected from six sections of three different sophomore- and junior-level psychology courses (cognitive development and learning, human development, and social psychology). Three instructors each taught one specific course in the 2-week immersion format and the same course in the traditional 16-week format. The sample consisted of 69.7% females. Although not directly measured, psychology students in our department typically consist of 1.2% American Indian, 2.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 5.3% African American, 13.2% Hispanic, 70.8% White, and 6.1% declaring other.

Both course formats were virtually the same, with the exception of distribution of course instructional time. Both course formats required a total of 45 hr of instructional time. The traditional 16-week course format was delivered twice a week, for 1 hr and 15 min per meeting for a total of 45 instructional hours. Traditional 16-week courses were in the fall or spring traditional semester only. The 2-week immersion courses met 5 days per week for 4.5 hr per day, for a total of 45 instructional hours, and occurred between the spring and fall semesters during the university’s winter break. Students were only allowed to take one course over this time period. Consequently, both course formats were not offered simultaneously. Additionally, all students select to enroll in either format based on their own personal needs and are not required to take an immersion course. In both course formats, students often take the course for a required major course, minor course, and/or elective. Because this is a matched-pair design (i.e., each instructor taught both in the immersion and 16-week format), each instructor used the same teaching method, covered the same material, and used the same assessments for both the 2-week immersion and traditional 16-week courses. For example, both course formats were required to do quizzes, exams, and writing assignments (e.g., term papers and theory synthesis papers). Additionally, students in both types of courses engaged in collaborative writing and presentation assignments (e.g., a group theory paper and presentation of how cognitive development applies to K–12 classroom).

Materials and Measures

To assess our research question, each instructor collected course quizzes and test scores for each of their courses for research purposes after the course ended. Questions were multiple-choice, true/false, or fill in the blank. For each instructor, the test items for the 2-week immersion and traditional 16-week courses were identical. Averaged over the six courses, there were 150 questions (range = 55–207). The proportion for total correct answers of test and quiz questions was computed for each participant in each course, resulting in one measure of student academic performance for the course. To assess SRIs, we used the formal policy and procedures outlined by our university. Our university’s measure for SRIs loosely follows the guidelines set forth by Seldin (2006). These were four questions using a 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent) response range. The exact wording of all four questions appears in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Inferential Statistics of Course Evaluations for Study 1.

	Two-Week Immersion Courses^a	16-Week Traditional Courses^a
Questions	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	t (d)	p
The course as a whole was:	5.61 (0.55)	4.93 (0.89)	5.61 (0.92)	<.001
The course content was:	5.44 (0.67)	5.02 (0.82)	3.23 (0.56)	.03
The instructor’s contribution to the course was:	5.82 (0.44)	5.19 (0.90)	4.92 (0.88)	.011
The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was:	5.84 (.045)	5.19 (0.83)	5.49 (0.98)	.002

Note. ^aThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N = 59) and the 16-week courses (N = 85) on the four student evaluation questions. The Likert-type scale was anchored on 1 = very poor to 6 = excellent.

Procedures. This study was a post facto assessment of six psychology courses. As stated previously, each instructor taught the same course in the 2-week immersion and traditional 16-week course. After each semester ended, each instructor collected quiz and exam items and computed the percentage of correct overall for each student.

Results

To examine student performance, we conducted an independent t-test between the immersion and 16-week courses. Results indicate that students in the 2-week immersion courses (M = 84.33%, SD = 9.53%) performed significantly higher than students in the traditional 16-week courses (M = 75.58%, SD = 10.26%), t(153) = 5.33, p <. 001, d = .88. For SRIs, four independent t-tests were conducted. On all four questions, students in the immersion courses rated their courses and instructors significantly higher than the traditional courses (see Table 1 for descriptive data). As indicated in Table 1, all four t-tests produced large effect sizes.

Brief Discussion

We sought to answer two research questions. First, we were interested in investigating whether there were academic performance benefits to teaching in a 2-week immersion course over that of teaching in a traditional 16-week course. The results indicate that there was significantly higher student academic performance in the immersion courses. As Anastasi (2007) suggests, there may be several explanations for findings such as ours, in that students in immersion courses may be at an unjust advantage. Specifically, it may be argued that our results are a product of course size (i.e., immersion courses were smaller than the traditional courses). Becker, Sommer, Bee, and Oxley (1973) suggested that when courses are smaller, there is increased participation, which may lead to higher academic performance. However, we contend that students academically perform almost 10% higher because of reduced interference effects (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Tulving & Psotka, 1971). Interference occurs either prospectively or retrospectively and occurs when new learning interferes with the recall of old learning or when old learning interferes with encoding of new learning. In the context of Study 1, we suggest that in a normal 16-week semester, often full-time students take four to five courses, which creates greater cognitive load, whereas in our 2-week immersion course, they typically only take one course. Thus, the amount of cognitive load is reduced, and there is far less potential for interference of any type.

Second, we assessed whether instructors were viewed more or less favorably (as measured by SRIs) in a two-week immersion course when compared to a traditional 16-week course. For all four SRI questions (Table 1), students consistently perceived instructors and the course in the 2-week immersion course as more positive than the same instructor in the traditional 16-week course. It is our opinion that students may rate instructors who teach the 2-week immersion courses higher because the immediate longer exposure (5–6 hr per day) over a short period of time (2 weeks) allows for a concentrated interaction between students and instructors that may increase student–teacher rapport.

Even though the difference between the two course formats had a large effect size, Study 1 was not without limitations that needed to be addressed, as they may restrict the generalization of results. First, selection effects could be at play in the Study 1 sample (see Beins & McCarthy, 2012; Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Nesselroade & Thompson, 1995). For example, course size, individual instructor differences, demographic differences, student collegiate grade point average (GPA), and higher education experience (e.g., total credits completed at this level) may impact student learning. Second, in light of the inconsistent findings in previous studies (e.g., Anastasi, 2007; Ray & Kirkpatrick, 1983), even though the results of Study 1 begin to establish a pattern indicating immersion courses may have positive effects on academic performance, we sought to replicate Study 1’s findings with an even larger sample size across several different types of psychology courses at several levels of the psychology curriculum while controlling for individual differences. In addition to improving Study 1 based on the limitations, we decided to add a more in-depth measure of SRIs with a particular focus on how students compared the course to other courses they have completed. For example, we assessed their perceived effort, intellectual challenge, grade expectations, and course involvement when compared to other courses and, as such, we were able to gain a deeper insight into the perceptions of these two course formats.

Based on strengthening Study 1, we sought to answer the following research questions: (1) After controlling for course size, overall students’ collegiate GPA, and education experience (e.g., total credits completed), is there a difference in students’ academic performance between 2-week immersion and traditional 16-week course?

(2) Is there a difference in students’ perception of teacher effectiveness, student involvement in the course, and students’ course ratings between 2-week immersion and traditional 16-week courses?

Study 2

Method

Participants

From the fall semester of 2006 to the spring semester of 2010, 957 undergraduate student participants enrolled in 12 sections of five different lower and upper division courses of psychology. Six instructors each taught one course in the 2-week immersion format and the same course in the 16-week traditional format. Both course formats required the same amount of instructional time (45 hr) and covered the same material. As was the case in Study 1, both course formats were identical in course structure (e.g., writing assignments, tests, quizzes, collaborative projects, instructional time, etc.) with the exception of course length. See Table 2 for descriptive data pertaining to the student participants and courses.

Table 2.

Demographic and Descriptive Data for Study 2.

Variable	Two-Week Immersion Courses (N = 177)	16-Week Traditional Courses (N = 780)
Gender
Female	138 (78.00%)	540 (69.20%)
Male	39 (22.00%)	240 (30.80%)
Ethnicity
African American	8 (4.50%)	23 (2.90%)
American Indian	3 (1.70%)	13 (1.70%)
Asian	7 (4.00%)	33 (4.20%)
Caucasian	121 (68.40%)	550 (70.50%)
Hispanic	23 (130%)	97 (12.40%)
International Student	1 (0.60%)	4 (0.50%)
Other	14 (7.90%)	60 (7.70%)
Course
Child psychology	17 (9.6%)	45 (5.9%)
Cognitive development and learning	15 (8.5%)	51 (6.5%)
Introductory psychology	5 (2.8%)	52 (6.7%)
Psychology of human development	70 (39.5%)	166 (21.3%)
Social psychology	66 (37.3%)	461 (59.1%)
Age of student (years)	M = 27.80 SD = 7.00	M = 25.40 SD = 6.66
Cumulative GPA	M = 3.11, SD = 0.61	M = 2.79, SD = 0.79
Academic performance	M = 3.26, SD = 0.82	M = 2.46, SD = 1.14
Total credits completed	M = 78.43, SD = 30.95	M = 52.90, SD = 30.41
Course size	M = 20.16, SD = 6.13	M = 30.55, SD = 7.76

Note. GPA = grade point average.

Procedure and Measures

This study was a post facto program assessment of our department’s psychology courses taught in both the immersion (2 weeks) and traditional (16 weeks) format. We obtained anonymous data on the variables described subsequently from our university’s Office of Institutional Research (OIR). There were four main variables (see Table 2 for descriptive demographic data). First, we requested and received standard demographic data (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and age) from OIR. Second, to assess academic performance, we received the final course grades for each student aggregated by format of course length (i.e., 2 vs. 16 weeks). Third, we collected individual differences variables to use as covariate measures to control for possible confounds. Specifically, based on work by Olani (2009), we collected data on university cumulative GPA as a measure of prior academic performance and by proxy a measure of performance goal motivation. Additionally, Rau and Durand (2000) suggest that when students progress in their higher education, they tend to select courses either personally or academically relevant to them, which is positively related to their GPA. We attempted to control for this selection bias by collecting data on the total credits that the students completed at our institution and using it as a covariate. As class size has been suggested as a mediator of student learning (Gilmore, Swerdik, & Beehr, 1980), we collected data on the number of students enrolled in each course.

Finally, to assess course evaluations and teacher effectiveness, we used the university’s SRI form. This form is divided into two sections. The first section consisted of the same questions used in Study 1 (see Table 3), which is loosely based on Selvin (2006). The second section of the form used a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = much lower to 7 = much higher to assess students’ perception of expected course grade, the amount of effort put into the course, the amount of effort to succeed in the course, and the student’s involvement in the course (e.g., doing assignments and attending class) when compared to other courses. Refer to Table 3 for a complete list of the questions and descriptive data.

Table 3.

Descriptive Data for SRIs for Study 2.

	2-Week Immersion Courses	16-Week Traditional Courses
	M (SD)	M (SD)
Instructor effectiveness and course ratings questions
^aThe course as a whole was:	5.46 (0.69)	5.19 (0.83)
^aThe course content was:	5.35 (0.69)	5.17 (0.78)
^aThe instructor’s contribution to the course was:	5.67 (0.61)	5.44 (0.78)
^aThe instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was:	5.62 (0.66)	5.35 (0.81)
Comparative Course Questions
^bCompared to other courses you have taken, do you expect your grade in this course to be (higher/lower):	5.34 (1.22)	4.93 (1.06)
^bCompared to other courses you have taken, the intellectual challenge presented was (higher/lower):	5.62 (0.98)	5.41 (0.94)
^bCompared to other courses you have taken, the amount of effort you put into this course was (higher/lower):	5.68 (1.17)	5.13 (1.08)
^bCompared to other courses you have taken, your involvement in this course (doing assignments, attending class, etc.) was (higher/lower):	5.96 (1.18)	5.39 (1.08)

Note. SRIs = student ratings of instructors. ^aThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N =109) and the 16-week courses (N =478) on the four student evaluation questions. ^bThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N = 74) and the 16-week courses (N = 204) on the four-student evaluation questions. The Likert-type scale was anchored on 1 = very poor to 6 = excellent.

Results

To examine academic performance differences between the two course types, while controlling for the effect of cumulative GPA, course size, and total credits completed at the university, we first ran three independent samples t-tests¹ on each of the three covariates. Results indicate significant differences for all three covariates (i.e., course size, cumulative GPA, and total credits completed); specifically, students in the 2-week immersion courses had significantly higher academic performance over that of traditional 16-week course students, t(927) = 4.86 p < .001, d = 0.44; significantly smaller course size than traditional 16-week courses, t(927) = 16.46, p < .001, d = 1.49; and significantly more total credits completed than traditional 16-week course students, t(927) = 9.76, p <.001, d = 0.83.

To control for individual differences between students in the 2-week immersion course and the traditional 16-week course, we conducted an analysis of covariance on student academic performance, and results indicated a significant main effect of the between-factor course type, F(1, 898) = 41.53 p < .001, η_p ² = .044, after covariates were considered. Even after adjusting for the covariates, students in the 2-week immersion courses had significantly higher academic performance than students in the traditional 16-week courses, F(4, 898) = 299.76, p <. 001, η_p ² = .57. The covariate of cumulative GPA and total credits completed significantly influenced the dependent variable of academic performance, F(1, 898) = 903.79 and 7.87, p <. 001, η_p ² = .50 and .01, respectively. However, the covariate of course size did not influence academic performance, F(1, 898) = .34, p >.05, η_p ²< .001.

Two one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effect of scheduling type on students’ perceptions of (1) teacher effectiveness and course content; and (2) students’ perceptions of effort and involvement in the course, for a sample of 587 students. For the first MANOVA, the dependent variables included the students’ rating of the course as a whole, the course content, the instructor’s contribution to the course, and the instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter. This gave us a total of four dependent variables. The results of the MANOVA show an overall significant difference between 2-week immersion courses and traditional 16-week courses in instructor evaluations, Wilks’ λ = F(4, 582) = 3.24, p = .012. Specifically, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that students in the 2-week immersion courses significantly rated the courses higher than students in the traditional 16-week course on ratings of the course as a whole, F(1, 585) = 10.10, p = .002, η_p ² = .02, ratings of course content F(1, 585) = 4.85, p = .028, η_p ² = .01, ratings of the instructor’s contribution of the course, F(1, 585) = 8.00, p= .005, η_p ²= .01, and ratings of instructor effectiveness in teaching the subject matter, F(1, 585) = 10.75, p = .001, η_p ²= .02. See Table 3 for descriptive data.

To examine whether scheduling type had an effect on evaluations of the course in comparison to other courses the student had taken, a one-way MANOVA was conducted. Specifically, questions on the student rating form included the amount of effort put into the course relative to other courses; do you expect your grade to be (higher than/lower than other courses); the intellectual challenge presented was (higher/lower than other courses); and the effort to succeed in the course was (higher/lower than other courses). A one-way MANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of 2-week immersion versus traditional 16-week courses on students’ course evaluations for a sample of 278² students. The results of the MANOVA show an overall significant difference between scheduling type in instructor evaluations, Wilks’ λ = F(5, 272) = 3.79, p = .002. The results of the ANOVA indicate that students in the 2-week immersion courses expected higher grades, F(1, 276) = 7.58, p =.006, η_p ² = .03, perceived a greater amount of effort put into the course compared to other courses, F(1, 276) = 13.96, p < .001, η_p ² = .05, and the effort required to succeed in the course was greater compared to other courses, F(1, 276) = 13.18, p = .012, η_p ²= .02, over that of students in traditional 16-week course. However, there was not a significant difference between the two course formats in the intellectual challenge of the course, F(1, 276) = 2.39, p = .10, η_p ² = .01. See Table 3 for descriptive data.

Brief Discussion

To assess our research question centered on the effects immersion scheduling has on academic performance, the data suggest that after controlling for selection effects (i.e., Nesselroade & Thompson, 1995) of cumulative GPA and total credits completed, students in immersion courses can perform just as well or better than students in standard length courses. Again, counter to Ray and Kirkpatrick (1983) and in support of Anastasi (2007), we found consistent results across various psychology courses supporting the use of immersion courses. As in Study 1, students may perform better in immersion courses primarily because of the lack of interference effects as previously discussed (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Tulving & Psotka, 1971). That is, in a normal semester, often full-time students take four to five courses, whereas in our 2-week immersion course, they can take only one course. Thus, there is far less potential for interference and competing cognitive demand.

SRIs were utilized as a measure of course and instructor effectiveness per the suggestion of Heckert, Latier, Ringwald, and Silvey (2006). A large body of research has shown several factors may mediate or moderate the ratings students give of teachers and courses, such as engagement, student–teacher rapport, course size, and course objectives (Berglund et al., 2013; Gump, 2004; Handlesman et al., 2005; Heckert et al., 2006). Inconsistent with Anastasi’s (2007) finding of no difference in 1 SRI item (i.e., course rigor) between the two course types, we found that students in the 2-week immersion courses rated the course and instructor more highly than students in the traditional 16-week courses even with the same instructor. Specifically, students in the 2-week immersion courses rated their instructors as more effective and as contributing more to the course than students in traditional 16-week courses. These students also rated the course as better, and in comparison to other courses. In the 2-week immersion courses, students expected a higher grade, put in more effort to succeed, and felt that more of the time per week they spent on the course was valuable to their education. However, students did indicate that the 2-week immersion course was no different than a 16-week course in intellectual demand. This last point is important to note because it provides some evidence that the courses were equivalent.

Overall, we contend that students may rate the 2-week immersion course and instructors more highly than students in the traditional 16-week course because the condensed format allows for a large amount of interaction between students and instructors in a very short time span (2 weeks), which may bolster student–teacher rapport. Berglund et al. (2013) found the rapport between teachers and their students was the strongest predictor of teacher effectiveness ratings on SRIs, such that teachers were perceived to be more effective when they had better rapport with their students (see Benson, Cohen, & Buskist, 2005; Wilson, Ryan, & Pugh, 2010 for further examples). Our results indicate that immersion courses may promote, expedite, and -solidify student–teacher rapport, thus improving students’ perception of teacher effectiveness and overall course ratings. Furthermore, since students are only enrolled in one course during immersion scheduling, most of their time and effort is devoted to this single course, which may make their involvement in the course more salient when completing the student evaluations of course and instructor.

General Discussion and Conclusions

Throughout both studies, we consistently found students in the immersion format significantly academically outperformed their 16-week cohort who received instruction from that same instructor with the same course content. As we have argued, the immersion instructional format may be beneficial because there are fewer competing cognitive demands, and we suggest that, when possible, psychology departments may want to consider incorporating this instructional format more often. We also argue that when students academically perform higher in the immersion format, it may be due to developing a quicker and more established rapport with their instructors, which has demonstrated to increase academic performance (Wilson et al., 2010). Tentatively, based on our findings, psychology departments may consider using more immersion courses to increase student academic performance.

Additionally, throughout both studies, we consistently observed that students in the 2-week immersion course produced higher SRIs over that of the traditional 16-week course. Because of course length and time spent per day in class—everyday—we contend that students and instructors develop a heightened rapport. And as student–instructor rapport is purported as significantly contributing to student evaluations of instructor and course, the immersion format, when applicable, may be more beneficial to developing student–instructor rapport.

There are several instructional implications to our findings. First, our results counterclaims that immersion courses provide only “superficial” coverage of material and cannot provide the same content as traditional courses due to the reduced time period in which the course takes place (Wlodkowski, 2003). Second, if—as a psychology instructor—the course objective is to promote students’ basic knowledge and comprehension of course material and to have students think critically about course material, which Ormrod (2006) and Shell and Kleen (1992) suggest is critical in higher education, then it seems that immersion course may be an important modality of teaching. Finally, our Study 2 findings replicate the results of Study 1, implying that immersion courses are a practical option for both college administrators and students who may face obstacles such as decreased resources and course scheduling.

Alongside the educational implications of Studies 1 and 2, there are a few limitations. First, we did not study long-term retention (e.g., 6-month delay) of academic performance. Some may argue that retention rates are lower in immersion courses; however, Seamon (2004) suggests that most researchers do not track performance over time, regardless of course format, due to the difficulties associated with this process. If possible, future researchers would do well to investigate the long-term effects on academic performance of immersion courses. Second, both studies lacked a randomized double-blind control design. However, we attempted to diminish this limitation by controlling for teacher characteristics, using a matched-instructor design, and an extremely large sample size (i.e., Study 2). Finally, in accordance with Dunn’s (2008) argument for vigor over rigor, we present an ecologically valid study that may be helpful to psychology instructors. Specifically, Dunn argues that random assignment is not always ethical or practical in classroom research. Also, Dunn argues that again the ethical implication of having a true control group is problematic.

As Davies (2006) states,

Advantages of intensive formats [immersion] can be both pedagogical and logistical. They can accrue to both student and instructor. They revolve around increased motivation, commitment, and concentration, diversity of teaching methods, stimulation and enthusiasm, stronger relations among students, and flexibility. (p. 19)

We suggest that, in addition, the immersion course may provide the benefit of increasing students’ academic performance. Although not always practical for every psychology department, this type of course infused with the traditional course may best enhance student performance.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The results of Study 1 were presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Diego, CA, USA. The results of Study 2 were presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Anastasi

J. S.

(2007). Full-semester and abbreviated summer courses: An evaluation of student performance. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 19–22. doi:10.1080/00986280709336643

Becker

F. D.

Sommer

Bee

Oxley

(1973). College classroom ecology. Sociometry, 36, 230–231.

Beins

B. C.

McCarthy

M. A.

(2012). Research methods and statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Benson

T. A.

Cohen

A. L.

Buskist

(2005). Rapport: Its relation to student attitudes and behaviors toward teachers and classes. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 237–270. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3204_8

Berglund

Richmond

A. S.

Epelbaum

V. B.

Oakman

S. D.

Pullano

Klein

E. M.

… Pisel

A. L.

(2013, April). Influence of humor, student rapport, and engagement on teaching effectiveness…no joke! Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Denver, CO.

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.

Burton

Nesbit

P. L.

(2008). Block or traditional? An analysis of student choice of teaching format. Journal of Management and Organization, 14, 4–19. doi:10.5172/jmo.2008.14.1.4

Campbell

D. T.

Stanley

J. C.

(1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Dalai

N. P.

(1994). Higher order thinking in MIS. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 34, 26–30.

10.

Daniel

E. L.

(2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines. College Student Journal, 34, 298–308.

11.

Davies

W. M.

(2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/davies.html

12.

Dunn

(2008). Another view: In defense of vigor over rigor in classroom demonstrations. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 349–352. doi:10.1080/00986280802374039

13.

Gilmore

Swerdik

M. E.

Beehr

T. A.

(1980). Effects of class size and college major on student ratings of psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 210–214. doi:10.1207/s15328023top0704_3

14.

Gump

S. E.

(2004). Daily class objectives and instructor’s effectiveness as perceived by students’. Psychological Reports, 94, 1250–1252.

15.

Handlesman

M. M.

Briggs

W. L.

Sullivan

Towler

(2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 184–191. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192

16.

Heckert

T. M.

Latier

Ringwald

Silvey

(2006). Relation of course, instructor, and student characteristics to dimensions of student ratings and teaching effectiveness. College Student Journal, 40, 195–203.

17.

Jonas

P. M.

Weimer

Herzer

(2004). Comparison of traditional and nontraditional undergraduate business degree programs—Adult education. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28, 161–168.

18.

Kojaku

L. K.

Nunez

A. M.

Malizio

A. G.

(1998). Descriptive summary of 1995–1996 beginning postsecondary students with profiles of students entering 2- and 4- year institutions U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. (NCES 1999-030)

19.

Lawerence

W. W.

McPherson

D. D.

(2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 178–182.

20.

Mims

S. K.

(1983). The impact of time on art learning: Intensive vs. concurrent scheduling in higher education. Studies in Art Education, 24, 118–125.

21.

Muraskin

L. D.

(1998). A structured freshman year for at-risk students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

22.

Nesselroade

J. R.

Thompson

W. W.

(1995). Selection and related threats to group comparisons: An example comparing factorial structures of higher and lower ability groups of adult twins. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 271–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.271

23.

Olani

(2009). Predicting first year university students’ academic success. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7, 1696–2095. Retrieved from http://www.investigacion-psicopedagogica.com/revista/articulos/19/english/Art_19_376.pdf

24.

Ormrod

J. E.

(2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

25.

Petrowsky

M. C.

(1996). The two-week summer microeconomics course: Success or failure? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 396779). Glendale Community College, Glendale, AZ.

26.

Rau

Durand

(2000). The academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help students to “make the grade”? Sociology of Education, 73, 19–38. doi:147.153.177.2

27.

Ray

Kirkpatrick

(1983). Two time formats to teaching human sexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 84–88. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1002_6

28.

Richmond

A. S.

Krank

H. M.

(April, 2007). Immersion scheduling, academic self-concept, and college student success. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association; Denver, CO.

29.

Roediger

H. L.

Karpicke

J. D.

(2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

30.

Ryan

R. G.

Wilson

J. H.

Pugh

J. L.

(2011). Psychometric characteristics of the professor–student rapport scale. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 135–141. doi:10.1177/0098628311411894

31.

Scott

P. A.

(2003). Attributes of high-quality intensive courses. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 97, 29–38. doi:10.1002/ace.86

32.

Seamon

(2004). Short-and long-term differences in instructional effectiveness between intensive and semester-length courses. Teachers College Record, 106, 852–874.

33.

Seldin

(2006). Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide to assessing teaching, research, and service. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

34.

Shell

W. L.

Kleen

B. A.

(1992). Innovative pedagogies for outcomes based teaching in the core MIS course. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 33, 3–7.

35.

Soldner

Lee

Duby

(2000). Welcome to the block: Development freshman learning communities that work. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1, 115–129. doi:10.2190/QL13-7QWA-VDXF-PJHL

36.

Tulving

Psotka

(1971). Retroactive inhibition in free recall: Inaccessibility of information available in memory store. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 1–8. doi:10.1037/h0030185

37.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The condition of education 2001 (NCES 1999-030). U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

38.

van Scyoc

Gleason

(1993). Traditional or intensive course lengths? A comparison of outcomes in economics learning. Journal of Economics Education, 24, 15–22.

39.

Wilson

J. H.

Ryan

R. G.

Pugh

J. L.

(2010). Professor-student rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 246–251. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510976

40.

Wlodkowski

R. J.

(2003). Accelerated learning in colleges and universities. In Wlodkowskii

R. J.

Kasworm

(Eds.), Accelerated learning for adults: The promise and practice of intensive educational formats (Vol. 97, pp. 5–15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.