Higher Ed in Half the Time: A Literature Review on the Shortened Course Format

April B. Kidd, MAT
April.Kidd@chattanoogastate.edu

From the Communications Department in the Division of Humanities, Chattanooga State Community College, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

ABSTRACT

The shortened course, which reduces course length from a full semester, offers a popular higher education format for nontraditional students, especially those at community colleges. The impacts of accelerated learning on both students and faculty have been studied, yet the variety of shortened course lengths makes comparison across studies more challenging. The purpose of this study is to investigate the half semester course length in undergraduate higher education from research published between 2010-2024. The methods used to locate dissertations and articles included searches on Google Scholar and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga library database using key words such as: accelerated courses, community college, and two-year college and backward citation chaining. Findings revealed an emphasis on student success, faculty and student stakeholder perceptions, strategies for andragogy, application for underprepared students, and considerations for decision-makers. The narrowed focus of this study can help continue conversations of institutional efficiency and effectiveness utilizing undergraduate shortened courses.

---

INTRODUCTION

For several reasons, college courses taught in shorter time frames than the traditional semester length have become popular. Technological advances, which allow learning opportunities beyond a physical classroom, are a big contributor to the popularity of shortened courses (Orr et al., 2019). The convenience a shorter course offers students is another reason for its popularity (Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Krug et al., 2016; Paasch, 2020). Additionally, condensed course formats enable students to concentrate on fewer classes at a time, while still advancing through their course of study at a normal pace by taking several consecutive shortened course sessions during each semester (Price, 2024; Serdyukov, 2008). Evidence of student success is another reason these shorter courses are popular (Sheldon & Durdella, 2010; Stith, 2023). Initiatives by organizations such as Achieving the Dream (Achieving the Dream) and the Ascendium Education Group (Ascendium Education Group, 2024) have helped spread awareness and support implementation of the shortened course. Campus-wide adoptions of the shortened course format at institutions such as Chattanooga State Community College (Proctor, 2021), Odessa College (Achieving the Dream), and Trident Technical College (Achieving the Dream, 2021) have boosted popularity. This continued popularity of the shortened course format warrants the importance of this study.

The purpose of this study is to review the literature published from 2010-2024 studying shortened courses in higher education. This study will identify various labels for the shortened course format before reviewing the literature focused on the half-semester length. This study will seek to determine the optimal length for the short course. Findings will also reveal perceptions of stakeholders, strategies for andragogy, and considerations for decision-makers.

Terminology

Shortened courses can be described using a variety of terms (Figure 1). The abbreviated course is one label used to describe courses less than the 16-week semester length (Anastasi, 2007; Ferguson & DeFelice, 2010; Paul, 2017). Many refer to the shortened format as compressed courses (Almquist, 2015; Boeding, 2016; Donnelly, 2023; Eagle, 2013; Guillory, 2018; Kops, 2014; Krug et al., 2016; Lutes & Davies, 2013; Price, 2024; Ross, 2024; Sheldon & Durdella, 2010; Tanner, 2018). The intensive course is another label used (Harwood et al., 2018; McDonald et al., 2018; Scott, 1994; Seamon, 2004; Vlachopoulos et al., 2019). Short course is a simplified term used by Lockyer et al. (2005) and Scott (1994). In addition to publication, a label can gain popularity through usage.

The accelerated course is one popular label for the shortened course. The Tennessee Board of Regents labeled classes taught in 7-week terms as accelerated (TBR The College System of Tennessee, 2024). This term is also used by others (Avni & Finn, 2019; Barral et al., 2018; Colclasure et al., 2018; Deichert et al., 2016; Gopalan et al., 2024; Graham, 2020; Guy et al., 2015; Johnson & Rose, 2015; Lee & Horsfall, 2010; Liu & Tourtellott, 2011; Paasch, 2020; Serdyukov, 2008; Wajler, 2012; Wlodkowski, 2003). However, the term accelerated is also used to reference developmental education programs, which may not be shortened (Hodara & Jaggars, 2014; Jaggars et al., 2015; Jenkins et al., 2010; Parks, 2014; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Walker, 2015). Additionally, Patchan et al. (2016) noted the term accelerated could refer to an increase in the amount of information learned instead of the length of time learned. Inconsistency in the usage of the term accelerated can add confusion when studying shortened courses.

Sometimes the course is the same length as the semester or term. Quarter terms can feature courses shorter in length than those which span traditional semesters (Bostwick et al., 2022; Tanner, 2018). Minimester is a term used to indicate a shorter semester of classes typically taught between typical semesters (Gonzalez, 2023; Krug et al., 2016; Paasch, 2020). When the semester is 16 weeks, shorter courses can be taken consecutively.

It is important to note that the designation of a course as shortened does not also distinguish the delivery method of the course. Shortened courses can be delivered online, face-to-face, or with a hybrid modality (Paul, 2017). Comparing delivery type of the shortened course was a study recommendation by Boeding (2016). Both the lack of consistency in the literature concerning the label for the shortened course and the different options concerning delivery style complicate this study.

Literature Review Methodology

Search Strategy

Electronic databases searched included Google Scholar and The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga library database. Key words and phrases used in the search included accelerated course, community college, and two-year college. Additional articles were located through backward citation chaining of Eagle (2013) and Guillory (2018). The publication date parameters were set to 2010-2024.

Inclusion Criteria

The first layer of inclusion criteria focused on the type of courses. Articles included in this study consisted of college courses taught on the undergraduate level. Courses taught for workplace training or on the secondary level were omitted from this study. Additionally, articles were narrowed to shortened courses lasting seven to eight weeks.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Theories Cited in the Literature on the Shortened Course

A variety of theoretical frameworks were mentioned in the studies. Only a couple of theories were repeated across multiple studies. Cognitive load theory, which recognizes a limited mental capacity for learning, was referenced by Almquist (2015), Gonzalez (2023), and Stith (2023). Tinto's retention theory, which seeks to identify why students continue or discontinue college was used by Stith (2023) and Paul (2017). Paul (2017), Stith (2023), and Tanner (2018) all used adult learning theory in their studies. Adult learning theory seeks to understand the intricacies of adult learners (Knowles, 1978). Similar to adult learning theory, andragogy, the practice of teaching adults, was another theory referenced across multiple studies (Paasch, 2020; Paul, 2017; Stith, 2023; Tanner, 2018). Some studies which used common theories also used multiple theories (see Table 1).

Research Methods Used to Study the Shortened Course

Three different types of research methods were utilized in the studies reviewed for this manuscript: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (see Table 2). Quantitative research was used most often followed by qualitative and then mixed methods. These differing approaches in methodology add variety to the study of the shortened course format.

Major Themes

The most popular theme throughout the literature was student success in a shortened course (Colclasure et al., 2018; Deichert et al., 2016; Gonzalez, 2023; Paul, 2017; Scanio, 2021; Sheldon & Durdella, 2010; Stith, 2023; Tanner, 2018). Much of the research focused on helping underprepared students (Avni & Finn, 2019; Donnelly, 2023; Guy et al., 2015; Hite, 2022; Nix et al., 2020; Parks, 2014; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Sheldon & Durdella, 2010; Walker, 2015). Other research centered on andragogy to inform best practices for instructors (Barral et al., 2018; Burgess & Medina-Smuck, 2018; Eagle, 2013; Gopalan et al., 2024; Kops, 2014; Lutes & Davies, 2013). Understanding student experiences/perceptions was another objective (Boeding, 2016; Checa-Morales et al., 2021; Paasch, 2020; Ross, 2024). Similarly, other studies investigated the faculty experience/perception (Johnson & Rose, 2015; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Wajler, 2012). For administrative stakeholders, the purpose of deciding whether to make the switch from a traditional format was investigated (Bostwick et al., 2022; Krug et al., 2016). This variety in purpose invites continued study.

The Literature Is Mixed on the Advantages of the Shortened Course

This review failed to uncover a consensus in favor of the shortened course length. Although more studies were in favor of shortened course length (Boeding, 2016; Burgess & Medina-Smuck, 2018; Checa-Morales et al., 2021; Deichert et al., 2016; Gonzalez, 2023; Graham, 2020; Lutes & Davies, 2013; Orr et al., 2019; Paasch, 2020; Ross, 2024; Sheldon & Durdella, 2010; Stith, 2023; Tanner, 2018), other studies supported the traditional semester-long course length (Bostwick et al., 2022; Colclasure et al., 2018; Gopalan et al., 2024). Some studies had mixed results, revealing both advantages and disadvantages of the shortened course (Eagle, 2013; Johnson & Rose, 2015; Liu & Tourtellott, 2011; Paul, 2017; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Scanio, 2021). For example, Saxon and Martirosyan (2017) noted shortened course advantages such as cooperative learning and a focus on essential content, yet also identifying disadvantages such as the fast pace and intense workload. Johnson and Rose (2015) noted both positive and negative outcomes for faculty teaching accelerated courses. While the accelerated format can be a better option for nontraditional students, the 16-week length is better for high school students (Scanio, 2021). This lack of consensus provides evidence for continued study in course length.

Several studies examined different shorter course lengths. Gonzalez (2023), Deichert et al. (2016), and Orr et al. (2019) compared 5-week courses and 8-week courses, while earlier studies by Scott (1994) and Serdyukov (2008) compared 4-week courses with 8-week courses. These studies revealed varying preferences concerning the ideal short course length. Based on test results for an introductory psychology course, Deichert et al. (2016) found 8-week courses preferable to 5-week and 16-week courses. While Gonzalez (2023) studied the same course subject at the same college, the time of year varied since the 5-week length was only taught in the summer. The study by Eagle (2013) covered the widest variety in length by featuring lengths from 4-12 weeks, but did not compare them. As noted by Orr et al. (2019), differences in content, delivery, and recognition support the need for a new conceptual model when making comparisons. Consistent with the result of Almquist (2015), this literature review failed to determine the optimal length of the short course.

The 8-week short course was the more frequent half-semester length when compared to the 7-week length (Colclasure et al., 2018; Gopalan et al., 2024; Krug et al., 2016; Liu & Tourtellott, 2011; Lutes & Davies, 2013; Paasch, 2020; Paul, 2017; Ross, 2024; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Scanio, 2021; Stith, 2023; Tanner, 2018). Only 3 studies completed by Boeding (2016), Burgess and Medina-Smuck (2018), and Price (2024) focused on the 7-week course, although it is the most popular shortened course length at Chattanooga State Community College.

Research on the student perspective of shortened courses reveals mixed results. Several studies observed evidence of student success in shortened courses (Almquist, 2015; Deichert et al., 2016; Donnelly, 2023; Gonzalez, 2023; Price, 2024; Scanio, 2021; Stith, 2023; Tanner, 2018), but the studies by Gopalan et al. (2024) and Paul (2017) noted higher student success in semester-length courses. One of the studies on developmental shortened courses found that students struggled to succeed in the next course, raising concerns about long-term impacts (Guy et al., 2015). Lutes and Davies (2013) observed students spent less time on shortened courses. Boeding (2016) studied the reasons why students perceive the shortened courses as successful. Student feedback on instructional strategies was also a focal point (Burgess & Medina-Smuck, 2018; Scott, 1994). The studies by Donnelly (2023) and Paasch (2020) reported positive student perceptions of the shortened course. In contrast to those studies, Colclasure et al. (2018), Krug et al. (2016), and Price (2024) found students did not like the shortened course format.

Faculty perceptions range from support to concern regarding the shortened course. The majority of instructors in the study by Scanio (2021) preferred the shortened course length while noting differences in teaching practices, such as the faster pace, increased communication, and quicker grading turnaround. Some studies revealed instructors simplified the course when reduced in length (Avni & Finn, 2019), while others advised against this (Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017). Another repeated faculty perception was that not all students are prepared to take a shortened course due to factors such as lack of maturity, lack of digital literacy, lack of time management skills, or lack of understanding concerning shortened courses (Avni & Finn, 2019; Nix et al., 2020; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Scanio, 2021). A lack of training for most faculty members teaching a shortened course was noted by Eagle (2013) and Johnson and Rose (2015). When shortened courses are not adopted on a wide scale, instructors reported feelings of isolation from their colleagues (Johnson & Rose, 2015). These findings help raise awareness for instructor support and continued study.

The call for institutional support was repeated in the literature. Some studies recommended faculty professional development (Almquist, 2015; Avni & Finn, 2019; Eagle, 2013; Johnson & Rose, 2015; Krug et al., 2016; Scanio, 2021). Other studies emphasized student support measures (Almquist, 2015; Boeding, 2016; Krug et al., 2016; Nix et al., 2020; Saxon & Martirosyan, 2017; Scanio, 2021). Several studies listed scheduling considerations (Almquist, 2015; Avni & Finn, 2019; Boeding, 2016; Grant, 2021; Paasch, 2020; Paul, 2017; Scanio, 2021). Administrators can help sustain shortened course initiatives through professional development, student support, and scheduling considerations.

Limitations

Several limitations concerning this literature review should be noted. While this study was narrowed to courses with lengths of 7 and 8 weeks, even 1 week can add significant instructional time. The time of year the shortened course was taught in could also be considered a limitation of the study since Scott (1994) found differences in students and student success for courses taught during the fall compared to the summer. The training, experience, and attitude of the instructor are also limitations which could impact study results (Colclasure et al., 2018). Instructors asked to adopt the shortened course format may have a different experience from those who opt to teach in it (Johnson & Rose, 2015). Similarly, the scale of courses offered in the shortened format at an institution could impact results since higher education institutions adopting the shortened course format on a large scale may prevent instructors from feeling isolated (Johnson & Rose, 2015). These limitations provide motivation for continued study.

CONCLUSION

The narrowed, half-semester length focus of this literature review aimed to explore used labels, determine optimal length, understand stakeholder perspectives, and collect practical insights. When considering the shortened course format, it is important to understand student needs, especially those of diverse student populations (Liu & Tourtellott, 2011; Price, 2024). It is also important to appreciate the faculty experience. Additionally, administrative stakeholders can use the findings from this review in decision-making, remembering recommendations for professional development, student support, and scheduling considerations. Ideally the shortened course recognizes globalization (Liu & Tourtellott, 2011), incorporates technology (Liu & Tourtellott, 2011), and increases access to education (Almquist, 2015; Price, 2024) which are important factors to community stakeholders. The results of this review help inform decision-making concerning the initiation, the implementation, and the sustainability of the shortened course.

While interest in the shortened course continues to grow, additional opportunities for study exist. Differences in the methodology of studies, as noted by Green et al. (2006), add to the limitations in terms of comparability across studies. Given the lack of consensus from this literature review concerning terminology, length, and perspective, more study is recommended to help support the stakeholders interested in the shortened course. A single, standardized term for the shortened course could streamline further study. Future research could also continue to compare various course lengths by subject or course modality. Continuing to study shortened lengths to better understand the student and faculty experience could help inform advising and andragogy. Persistent research can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the shortened college course.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank Dr. Cynthia T. Williamson, Dr. Ashleigh C. Pipes, and Kelly D. Kidd.

REFERENCES

1. Achieving the Dream. Preparing for shortened academic terms. https://library.chattanoogastate.edu/ld.php?content_id=75611865
2. Achieving the Dream. (2021, July 6) Preparing for shortened academic terms: College spotlight - Odessa College. https://achievingthedream.org/shorter-terms-at-odessa-college-an-overnight-success-several-years-in-the-making/
3. Achieving the Dream. (2021, June 9). Shortening academic terms for student success at Trident Technical College. https://achievingthedream.org/shortening-academic-terms-for-student-success-at-trident-technical-college/
4. Almquist, C. D. (2015). Time-compressed courses and student success: Evidence and application in the community college (Publication Number 3730304) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland University College]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
5. Anastasi, J. S. (2007). Full-semester and abbreviated summer courses: An evaluation of student performance. Teaching of Psychology, 34(1), 19–22. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.utc.edu/10.1080/00986280709336643
6. Ascendium Education Group. (2024). Course length and student success: Quantitative analysis of 7-week courses. https://www.ascendiumphilanthropy.org/shared-knowledge/news-and-insights/course-length-and-student-success-quantitative-analysis-of-7-week-courses
7. Avni, S., & Finn, H. B. (2019). Pedagogy and curricular choice in community college accelerated writing courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1398687
8. Barral, A. M., Ardi-Pastores, V. C., & Simmons, R. E. (2018). Student learning in an accelerated introductory biology course is significantly enhanced by a flipped-learning environment. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar38–ar38. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0129
9. Boeding, L. A. (2016). Academic performance in compressed courses: A phenomenological study of community college student success (Publication Number 10168260) [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
10. Bostwick, V., Fischer, S., & Lang, M. (2022). Semesters or quarters? The effect of the academic calendar on postsecondary student outcomes. American Economic Journal. Economic policy, 14(1), 40–80. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190589
11. Burgess, A., & Medina-Smuck, M. (2018). Collaborative testing using quizzes as a method to improve undergraduate nursing student engagement and interaction. Nursing Education Perspectives, 39(3), 178–179. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000223
12. Checa-Morales, C., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Torres, Y. G., Barba, C., & García, A. (2021). Quantitative comparison between traditional and intensive face-to-face education through an organizational model. Education Sciences, 11(12), 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120820
13. Colclasure, B. C., LaRose, S. E., Warner, A. J., Thoron, A. C., & Roberts, T. G. (2018). Student perceptions of accelerated course delivery format for teacher preparation coursework. Journal of Agricultural Education, 59(3), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2018.03058
14. Deichert, N. T., Maxwell, S. J., & Klotz, J. (2016). Retention of information taught in introductory psychology courses across different accelerated course formats. Teaching of Psychology, 43(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315619725
15. Donnelly, K. M. (2023). Yes, developmental students can thrive in integrated courses and compressed terms: Leveraging institutional data and national trends to build the best reading/writing program. Teaching and Learning Excellence through Scholarship, 3(1), n1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1428963
16. Eagle, T. (2013). A survey of university teaching practices and perceptions of compressed courses. [Masters thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/42088
17. Ferguson, J. M., & DeFelice, A. E. (2010). Length of online course and student satisfaction, perceived learning, and academic performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i2.772
18. Gonzalez, C. E. (2023). Comparison of Texas Student Success in College Science Among Three-Term Durations (Publication Number 30632651) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University-Kingsville]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
19. Gopalan, C., Bruno, E. L., Daughrity, S. E., & Nguyen, K.-L. T. (2024). Flipping the anatomy classroom: A comparative analysis of 16-week and 8-week courses in a community college. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1389825
20. Graham, C. E. (2020). Quantitative Comparison of Online Term Lengths at a Mississippi Community College (Publication Number 28315719) [Doctoral dissertation, American College of Education]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
21. Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know (Kindle ed.). Viking.
22. Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
23. Guillory, R. M. (2018). Do 5-week, time-compressed, face-to-face summer courses increase course retention rates of students at a 2-year college? (Publication Number 10845082) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University-Commerce].
24. Guy, G. M., Cornick, J., Holt, R. J., & Russell, A. S. H. (2015). Accelerated developmental arithmetic using problem solving. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(1), 2–9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24613996
25. Harwood, K. J., McDonald, P. L., Butler, J. T., Drago, D., & Schlumpf, K. S. (2018). Comparing student outcomes in traditional vs intensive, online graduate programs in health professional education. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 240–240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1343-7
26. Hite, J. A. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of the accelerated learning program for English in Tennessee community colleges (Publication Number 29067580) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2659234544?sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
27. Hodara, M., & Jaggars, S. S. (2014). An examination of the impact of accelerating community college students' progression through developmental education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(2), 246–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777326
28. Jaggars, S. S., Hodara, M., Cho, S.-W., & Xu, D. (2015). Three accelerated developmental education programs: Features, student outcomes, and implications. Community College Review, 43(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552114551752
29. Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Belfield, C., Jaggars, S. S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for accelerating academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) effective and affordable? CCRC Working Paper No. 21. Community College Research Center, Columbia University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512398
30. Johnson, C., & Rose, A. D. (2015). Professing reform while seeking acceptance: The dilemmas of teaching accelerated courses in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 63(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2015.998068
31. Knowles, M. S. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College Review, 5(3), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155217800500302
32. Kops, W. J. (2014). Teaching compressed-format courses: Teacher-based best practices. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 40(1). http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjuce-rcepu
33. Krug, K. S., Dickson, K. W., Lessiter, J. A., & Vassar, J. S. (2016). Student preference rates for predominately online, compressed, or traditionally taught university courses. Innovative Higher Education, 41(3), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9349-0
34. Lee, N., & Horsfall, B. (2010). Accelerated learning: A study of faculty and student experiences. Innovative Higher Education, 35, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9141-0
35. Liu, Y.-H., & Tourtellott, M. (2011). Blending at small colleges: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks JALN, 15(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v15i1.191
36. Lockyer, J., Ward, R., & Toews, J. (2005). Twelve tips for effective short course design. Medical teacher, 27(5), 392–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500086888
37. Lutes, L., & Davies, R. (2013). Comparing the rigor of compressed format courses to their regular semester counterparts. Innovative Higher Education, 38(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9226-z
38. McDonald, P. L., Harwood, K. J., Butler, J. T., Schlumpf, K. S., Eschmann, C. W., & Drago, D. (2018). Design for success: Identifying a process for transitioning to an intensive online course delivery model in health professions education. Medical Education Online, 23(1), 1415617-1415610. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2017.1415617
39. Nix, A. N., Jones, T. B., Brower, R. L., & Hu, S. (2020). Equality, efficiency, and developmental education reform: The impact of SB 1720 on the mission of the Florida college system. Community College Review, 48(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552119876327
40. Orr, D., Weller, M., & Farrow, R. (2019). How is digitalisation affecting the flexibility and openness of higher education provision? Results of a global survey using a new conceptual model. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2019(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.523
41. Paasch, A. J. (2020). Students perceptions of accelerated program learning: A comparative study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin--Stout]. http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/82525
42. Parks, P. L. (2014). Moving at the speed of potential: A mixed-methods study of accelerating developmental students in a California community college (Publication Number 3611804) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
43. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Sieg, W., & McLaughlin, D. (2016). The effect of blended instruction on accelerated learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1013977
44. Paul, R. M. (2017). An evaluation of student performance and student success in ACA 122 comparing eight-week and 16-week courses (Publication Number 10621241) [Doctoral dissertation, Wingate University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
45. Price, J. A. (2024). Effectiveness of compressed online undergraduate courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 22(4), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12319
46. Proctor, B. A. (2021, January 8). Chattanooga State introduces 7-week courses for spring semester. https://www.chattanoogastate.edu/news-center/internal-press-release/chattanooga-state-introduces-7-week-courses-spring-semester
47. Ross, C. L. (2024). Nontraditional student perceptions of the influence compressed courses have on their academic success (Publication Number 30992408) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
48. Saxon, D. P., & Martirosyan, N. M. (2017). NADE members respond: Improving accelerated developmental mathematics courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(1), 24–27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44987471
49. Scanio, H. (2021). Does semester-length matter: A mixed-methods arts-based research investigation into online learning (Publication Number 28492766) [Doctoral dissertation, Lamar University-Beaumont]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
50. Scott, P. A. (1994). A comparative study of students' learning experiences in intensive and semester-length courses and of the attributes of high-quality intensive and semester course learning experiences [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the North American Association of Summer Sessions, Portland, OR. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED370498
51. Seamon, M. (2004). Short-and long-term differences in instructional effectiveness between intensive and semester-length courses. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 852–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00360.x
52. Serdyukov, P. (2008). Accelerated learning: What is it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 1(1). https://ir.duan.edu.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/82905310-edf0-4da5-ac78-9891b5d8f9c4/content#page=47
53. Sheldon, C. Q., & Durdella, N. R. (2010). Success rates for students taking compressed and regular length developmental courses in the community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(1-2), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920903385806
54. Stith, M. (2023). The impact of term length on community college student success. (Publication Number 30250410) Doctoral dissertation, University of the Cumberlands]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
55. Tanner, E. K. (2018). Nontraditional students success in compressed courses within a community college cohort (Publication Number 3075) [Masters Thesis and Special Projects, Western Kentucky Univesity]. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/3075
56. TBR The College System of Tennessee. (2024). Accelerated (7-week) courses. https://www.tbr.edu/policy-strategy/accelerated-7-week-courses
57. Vlachopoulos, P., Jan, S. K., & Lockyer, L. (2019). A comparative study on the traditional and intensive delivery of an online course: Design and facilitation recommendations. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2196
58. Wajler, N. S. (2012). Community college adult accelerated program: Faculty educational philosophy influence on student retention (Publication Number 3545294) National-Louis University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
59. Walker, M. (2015). Exploring faculty perceptions of the impact of accelerated developmental education courses on their pedagogy: A multidisciplinary study. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 32(1), 16–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44290283
60. Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Accelerated learning in colleges and universities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(97), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.84