accelerated learning research projectraymondwlodkowski.com/materials/ars.alr.phase5.pdf5. contribute...

REPORT ON

ACCELERATED LEARNING

RESEARCH PROJECT

Phase 5

September 2000 – August 2001

Prepared byRaymond J. Wlodkowski, Ph.D.

Jeffery R. Gonzales, M.B.A.Jennifer E. Mauldin, M.S.

CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF ACCELERATED LEARNING

December 30, 2002

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS�PURPOSE .........................................................................................................................................................................................2

Institutions and Organizations Participating in the Research Project..............................................................................2INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................................3PART I: EVALUATION RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN 2000-2001, PHASE 5 ........................................................................................6

Figure 1: Accelerated Learning Research Project,Phases 1 (1996-97), 3 (1998-99) and 5 (2000-2001)...........................................................................................6

Sample Selection....................................................................................................................................................................7Enrollment by Course for Each College ......................................................................................................................7Table 1: Survey Averages for Current Students and Alumni in Phase 5 ...................................................................8

Methodology and Findings....................................................................................................................................................8Summary of Responses to Questions Particularly Important to Motivation............................................................9Summary of Questions About Instruction and Materials........................................................................................ 10

Alumni Perceptions and Attitudes ..................................................................................................................................... 10Current Student Learning and Content Mastery ............................................................................................................... 11

Dimensions of Performance by Course.................................................................................................................... 11Table 2: Individual Student Averages Across All Applied Dimensions of Performance ...................................... 12Table 3: Averages for Each Dimension of Performance for Current Students by Course................................... 13

Discussion............................................................................................................................................................................ 14PART II: A COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS FROM PHASES 1, 3, AND 5 ................................................................... 15

Background......................................................................................................................................................................... 15Selection of Current Students and Alumni for Phases 1, 3, and 5......................................................................... 15Table 4: Sample Sizes for Phases 1, 3, and 5 .......................................................................................................... 15

Comparisons and Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 16Perceptions and Attitudes of Current Students in Phases 1, 3, and 5 ................................................................... 16Table 5: Demographic Comparison of Current Students in Phases 1, 3, and 5................................................... 17

Current Students Perceptions and Attitudes..................................................................................................................... 17Table 6: Question Comparison of Current Students for Phases 1, 3, and 5......................................................... 18Table 7: Demographic Comparison of Alumni for Phases 1, 3, and 5 ................................................................. 19

Alumni Perceptions and Attitudes ..................................................................................................................................... 19Table 8: Question Comparison of Alumni for Phases 1, 3, and 5 ......................................................................... 20

Population Comparison Among Regis University Alumni ............................................................................................... 20Table 9: Demographic Comparison of Regis Alumni for Phases 1, 3, and 5 ...................................................... 21

Regis University Alumni Perceptions and Attitudes ......................................................................................................... 21Table 10: Question Comparison for Alumni in Phases 1, 3, and 5 ....................................................................... 22

Current Student Learning and Content Mastery ............................................................................................................... 23Table 11: Individual Student Averages Across All Applied Dimensions of Performance ................................... 23Table 12: Averages for Dimensions of Performance by Course ........................................................................... 24

Summary of Phases 1, 3, and 5 ......................................................................................................................................... 25Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27Issues for Further Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 29APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

End-of-Course Evaluation................................................................................................................................................... 31APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Alumni Survey...................................................................................................................................................................... 33APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Case Study for Corporate Finance: Accelerated Company .............................................................................................. 35Management Case Study: The Distribution Center........................................................................................................... 39Management of Human Resources Case Study: The Mirage Hotel ................................................................................ 40

APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 41Dimensions of Performance and Criteria Applied to Student Case Study Responses

for Corporate Finance ................................................................................................................................................ 41Dimensions of Performance and Criteria Applied to Student Case Study Responses

for Management and Management of Human Resources ...................................................................................... 43

2

REPORT ONACCELERATED LEARNING RESEARCH PROJECT

PHASE 5SEPTEMBER 2000 TO AUGUST 2001

PURPOSE

This report presents the findings of the fifth phase of a research project conducted byRegis University. The purpose of the project is to conduct a series of longitudinal trendstudies to:�

1. assess the academic quality of accelerated courses;2. assess the value of accelerated courses to students;3. compare attitudes and achievement between students in Phases 1, 3, and 5;4. link these research findings to recommendations for improving instruction,

academic programs, and professional development;5. contribute locally and globally to the knowledge base for adult learning in general

and to accelerated learning in particular.

Phase 5 replicates the research conducted in Phases 1 and 3 using a different set ofinstitutions. Part I of this report contains the results from Phase 5 of the project, and PartII compares results from Phase 5 (2000-2001), Phase 3 (1998-1999) and Phase 1 (1996-1997).�This information is intended to contribute to academic quality at Regis University,particularly in the School for Professional Studies, and at New Ventures of RegisUniversity Partner Schools.�

�INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING

IN THE RESEARCH PROJECT�1. Regis University is a Jesuit University located in Denver, Colorado. The School for

Professional Studies serves primarily adult learners and offers classroom-basedaccelerated courses (5- and 8-week formats) as well as distance education courses andguided independent study. The school has a variety of bachelors and masters degreeprograms.�

2. New Ventures of Regis University is a corporation that assists other highereducation institutions in developing their own accelerated degree-completionprograms for working adults.�

3. New Ventures of Regis University Partner Schools are colleges and universities thathave entered into a formal relationship with Regis University to establish anaccelerated undergraduate degree-completion program. There are currently 16 partnerschools in the United States and 2 in other countries. Davenport College in GrandRapids and Emmanuel College in Boston participated in Phase 1 of this research.Rosemont College in Philadelphia and St. Ambrose University in Davenportparticipated in Phase 3. Walsh University in Akron, Ohio and Waynesburg Collegein Canonsburg, PA participated in Phase 5.

3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND�Both the School for Professional Studies (SPS) and New Ventures of Regis University(NVRU) have enjoyed remarkable growth. Over 13,000 students are enrolled in SPS, and32 colleges and universities have participated in the New Ventures Program. Operatingwithin the central values of the Jesuit tradition, Regis University offers experienced adultsa post-secondary education that is responsive to the realities of their communities andprofessional lives. The key element of this educational program is the accelerated coursethat allows students to complete a three credit hour course in 5 or 8 weeks. In spring2001, SPS offered more than 850 accelerated courses ranging from philosophy,accounting, and computer science to adult spiritual life and growth. SPS has beendelivering accelerated programs since 1979, and through New Ventures, Regis shares itsexpertise with other institutions that want to offer programs in this format.�Although accelerated courses (often referred to as intensive courses) have been offered bycolleges and universities for many years, they remain somewhat controversial (Wolfe,1998). Conventional academic thinking often regards such courses as being toocompressed to produce consistent educational value. Still other higher education punditscritique them as sacrificing breadth and reflection, resulting in learning that is crammedand poorly developed. Empirical research, however, finds substantial support for theaccelerated format. In their comprehensive critique of accelerated courses, Scott andConrad (1992, page 443) conclude, “… the large number of studies across all fields withno preference between compressed and traditional formats suggest that all courses---regardless of field ---can utilize intensive course designs without diminishing educationaloutcomes.” Furthermore, the growth of SPS attests to the popularity of the acceleratedformat. Indeed, most studies find students to be favorably inclined toward acceleratedcourses (Shafer, 1995; Kasworm, 2001) because they appreciate the convenience andeffectiveness of this format, the opportunity for concentrated and uninterrupted study,and the strong interest cultivated by this intensity. The relevant and efficient format ofaccelerated courses is particularly attractive to adult learners who wish to accomplishpragmatic educational goals (Aslanian, 2001; Wlodkowski, 1999).�Why are accelerated courses effective? What factors, other than time in class, mightcontribute to knowledge acquisition in a course? Certainly, student motivation would bean influence. Research consistently shows a strong positive relationship between studentmotivation and learning (Pintrich and Schunk, 1996).

One reason for this is that adults strive to be more self-directed and autonomous(Brockett and Hiemstra, 1991) and this personal attribute is an asset to learning in theintense and relatively short accelerated course. Also, Stratil (1988) finds that adults aremore willing than younger college students to make sacrifices to achieve academically. Inaddition, many adult students have honed their writing and critical thinking skills throughextended professional work experience. These studies and others suggest thatcharacteristics such as adult motivation, work experience, and self-direction whencombined with an instructionally sound and abbreviated learning experience can enhancelearning (Wlodkowski and Westover, 1999) so that adults are capable of doing theconcentrated, independent study required in accelerated courses.�In 1996, Bill Husson, (Vice President and Academic Dean, SPS) and Tom Kennedy (Vice-President, NVRU) initiated a research study under the direction of Raymond Wlodkowskito evaluate accelerated courses. This work has become a longitudinal research project tomonitor quality and improve learning models in SPS and NVRU.

4

In August 2000, after four years of continuous research, Regis University established TheCenter for the Study of Accelerated Learning. The mission of the Center is to researchadult learning, evaluate instruction, document student outcomes, and provide ongoingeducation to assure the quality and effectiveness of accelerated programs.�

PHASES OF RESEARCH PRIOR TO THIS STUDY�PHASE 1:

In 1996-1997, a study was conducted to investigate the quality of undergraduateaccelerated courses at Regis University and a representative sample of New Ventures’Partner Schools. Researchers surveyed current students and alumni from DavenportCollege, Emmanuel College, and Regis University to assess their perceptions ofaccelerated courses. The findings for both groups documented their strong satisfactionwith the motivational appeal and instructional effectiveness of accelerated courses. Asone example of many, 84 percent of current students and 82 percent of alumni indicatedthey would return to their respective colleges if they could start college again.

The researchers also assessed the learning outcomes of current students with summative,performance-based problems and case studies. Using criteria-referenced standards, facultyexperts found that on the average, for all courses in the study, students demonstratedmore than satisfactory learning and very good writing skills.

PHASE 2:

In 1997-1998, a study was conducted to explore the relationship between contact hoursand student perceptions and learning in accelerated and traditional courses. Researcherscompared the perceptions and learning of students in accelerated courses (5 weeks, 20contact hours) with the perceptions and learning of students in traditional courses (16weeks, 40 contact hours) at Regis University. There were no trends or significantdifferences favoring either format. In accelerated and traditional courses, students havevery positive attitudes toward their courses and, according to criteria referencedstandards, they are more than satisfactorily learning what is required of them in bothformats.

PHASE 3:

In 1998-1999, researchers replicated the study that was conducted in Phase 1(1996-1997)with St. Ambrose University, Rosemont College and Regis University. This study allowedresearchers to compare the perceptions and learning outcomes of students in Phase 1 andPhase 3. The findings from both studies indicate that current students and alumni havevery positive attitudes toward accelerated courses. Students in both phases on theaverage demonstrate more than satisfactory learning outcomes, but students’understanding of research and theory in Management and Management of HumanResources was less than satisfactory in Phase 3. To correct this problem, researchersrecommended that professional development for instructors emphasize active learningstrategies for teaching theory and research and that teaching modules for these coursesbe revised to improve coverage of these areas.

5

PHASE 4:

In 1999-2000, researchers replicated the study conducted in Phase 2 (1997-1998) in adifferent cultural context. The study took place in the three institutions that are part of theAna G. Mendez University System in Puerto Rico and for the first time, an AcceleratedLearning Research Project was conducted in Spanish. The study found that students inboth the accelerated and traditional formats had very positive attitudes and perceptionstoward their courses, but students in the accelerated courses demonstrated higher levelsof learning than students in the traditional courses, even though the duration and amountof class time for learning in their courses were significantly less.

This better performance was attributed to the students in the accelerated courses beingolder, more educated, having more work experience, and coming from families withhigher incomes than the students in the traditional courses. It is likely that thesebackground characteristics allowed the older adults in the accelerated courses to developwriting skills, work and study habits, and self-regulation skills that combined to improvetheir capability for learning in college. These findings provide initial evidence thataccelerated college courses can be effective learning formats for adults in societies whereEnglish is not the primary language.

6

PART IEVALUATION RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN 2000 - 2001, PHASE 5

The philosophies of SPS and NVRU are proactive and “designed to meet the needs ofexperienced, reflective adults who have not had the opportunity for college degrees.” Inagreement with this philosophy, the research in Phase 5 is learner-centered, emphasizingthe perspective and the academic, personal, and professional growth of the learner. Thisorientation, which began in Phase 1 and 3, means gathering data about three differentaspects of quality: 1) current student perceptions, 2) alumni perceptions, and 3) currentstudent performance assessed by subject matter experts. This process, which researcherscall triangulation, provides information about current students’ perception of acceleratedcourses; alumni perception after time and work have affected their perspectives; andcurrent students’ attainment of the major learning objectives of the courses. Figure 1 is agraphic representation of this research triangulation.

�

�

��

Academic QualityAND VALUE TO STUDENTS

Experts’ Assessment

Graduates CurrentlyEnrolled

Accelerated Learning Research ProjectPhase I (1996-97) and Phase 3 (1998-99)

Phase 5 (2000-2001)

Figure 1:

7

SAMPLE SELECTION�Regis University, Waynesburg College, and Walsh University are all private colleges. Theinstructors in this study are affiliate faculty who have full-time jobs apart from theircollege teaching. As in Phase 1, the three undergraduate courses selected for this studywere Management, Management of Human Resources, and Corporate Finance. Thesecourses were chosen because they had experienced instructors, had large enrollments,existed in the same accelerated format (5 weeks and 20 contact hours), and had verysimilar curricular and learning objectives across the colleges. Their content alsorepresented a variety of disciplines: math, business, and organizational development.�The sampling frame was course sections, and all students in the selected sections wereincluded in the study. In each college, for the Fall 2001 semester, the first availablecourse section with an experienced instructor was selected for a total of nine courses and93 students. The number of students in each section is listed in the table below.�

ENROLLMENT BY COURSE FOR EACH COLLEGE

COLLEGE MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCES CORPORATE FINANCERegis University �12 �17 �10Walsh University �7 �9 �15Waynesburg College �11 �7 �5

�Details of student demographics are included in Table 1. Overall, the average age of thestudents was 35.7 with a standard deviation of 9.3. Most of them were Caucasian (52.6%)and women (55.7%). The largest ethnic minority groups were Hispanic (12.4%) andAsian/Pacific Islander (11.3%).�

The alumni who participated in the study graduated from Regis University andWaynesburg College business management programs in calendar year 1998. Because ofan ongoing fund drive, Walsh alumni were not surveyed to avoid excessive solicitation.The study population included 456 graduates who had experienced a wider range ofinstructors than the current students. Surveys were sent to a random sample of 200alumni and 137 returned their surveys for a response rate of 68.5%. The average age ofthe respondents was 40.3 with a standard deviation of 9.6. Most of these alumni wereCaucasian (89.1%) and women (68.6%) with the largest ethnic minority groups beingHispanic (4.4%), African American (3.6%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (0.7%).

8

��

CURRENT STUDENTS 2000/2001(N = 93)

ALUMNI 2000/2001(N = 137)

DEMOGRAPHICS & CHOICES % QSTNS % DEMOGRAPHICS & CHOICES % QSTNS %Average Age (not a %) 35.7 1 95.7 Average Age (not a %) 40.3 1 90.6Ethnicity 2 82.1 Ethnicity 2 89.1

Caucasian 52.6 3 98.9 Caucasian 89.1 3 94.1Hispanic 12.4 4** 93.7 Hispanic 4.4 4** 91.0African American 3.1 5 92.6 African American 3.6 5 88.5Asian/Pacific Island 11.3 6 81.1 Asian/Pacific Island 0.7 6 81.3American Indian 2.1 7** 95.8 American Indian 0.7 7** 88.9Unknown 18.5 Unknown 1.5

Gender 8 77.9 Gender 8 86.2Female 55.7 9 80.9 Female 68.6 9 92.8Male 44.3 10 94.7 Male 30.7 10 89.7

Reasons 11 92.5 Reasons 11 89.4Accelerated 80.4 12 97.8 Accelerated 65.7 12 97.0Type of Program 64.9 13 93.6 Type of Program 28.5 13 89.4AcademicReputation

36.1 14 94.6 AcademicReputation

29.3 14 92.9

Location 5.2 15 91.4 Location 25.5 15 88.8Size 15.5 16** 93.7 Size 5.8 16** 83.7Atmosphere 7.2 17 95.8 Atmosphere 0.7 17 84.8

18 94.7 18 92.2Choose thiscollege again? Yes 75.8 19 97.9

Choose thiscollege again? Yes 82.5 19 94.9

Uncertain 18.9 20 94.8 Uncertain 13.1 20 89.8No 5.3 21 97.9 No 4.3 21 97.8

22 96.8 22 84.2Same major? Same major?

Yes 61.1 Yes 69.3Uncertain 15.8 Uncertain 16.8No 23.2 No 13.9

Average Proportion of Agreement 92.5 Average Proportion of Agreement 89.9

* Unless otherwise indicated, the means combine strongly agree and agree responses.** Strongly disagree and disagree

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS�

CURRENT STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

�Since 1996, the studies have used a 22-item self-report survey (Appendix A) thatcombines items from the Motivational Framework for Culturally ResponsiveTeaching (Wlodkowski and Ginsberg, 1995) with indicators of instructional quality.The framework provides a holistic model directly applicable to adult learning inaccelerated courses (Wlodkowski, 1999) and is based on the premise that most

TABLE 1SURVEY AVERAGES* OF CURRENT STUDENTS AND ALUMNI IN PHASE 5 (2000/2001)

9

people are highly motivated to learn when they feel included (respected withinthe learning group), have a positive attitude (find the subject matter relevant), canmake learning meaningful (find learning engaging and challenging), and arebecoming competent (effective at what they value). Responses to this surveyindicate whether the students perceive the conditions for learning as intrinsicallymotivating. Reliability tests have been run for the survey and the Cronbach’s alphafor the entire scale is .93.�The self-report survey was administered to the students in the last two hours ofthe final class session and all 93 students responded. In addition to the specificquestions about motivational conditions, the survey included two questions aboutoverall experience. One of these questions asked students to choose two primaryreasons for attending Regis, Walsh, or Waynesburg College. The four responsesselected most often were accelerated courses (80.4%), type of programs available(64.9%), academic reputation (36.1%), and size (15.5%). The other question asked,“If you could start college over, would you choose to attend this college?” About75.8% of the students answered affirmatively (42.1% definitely yes and 33.7%probably yes), 18.9% were uncertain, and 5.3% responded probably no. Theseresponses suggest that the accelerated format was a major factor in choosing theprograms and most of the students are satisfied with their experience.�The detailed student experience section of the survey offered four categories ofresponse: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. Table 1 providesthe total proportions of students who selected the strongly agree or agreeresponses for each of the 22 questions on the survey. Student responses toquestion items of particular importance to motivation are summarized in the tablebelow.

�

ITEMS RELATED TO MOTIVATION

QUESTIONSTRONGLYAGREE AGREE

TOTALAGREE

1. Overall, this course was a valuable learningexperience.

�58.5%

�37.2%

�95.7%

7. The teacher respected student opinions andideas.

81.2% 14.7% 95.9%

8. I have used information or skills that I havelearned in this course.

�27.4%

�50.5%

�77.9%

10. This course was relevant to my goals. 46.3% 48.4% 94.7%11. This course helped me to be effective at

what I value.�43.0%

�49.5%

�92.5%

12. The classroom climate for this course wasfriendly and respectful.

�63.8%

�34.0%

�97.8%

14. This course challenged me to think. 57.4% 37.2% 94.6%19. In this course, I felt included. 57.9% 40.0% 97.9%20. This course was meaningful for me. 51.6% 43.2% 94.8%

The average for these nine items is 93.5%

10

The ratings for the motivational questions suggest that students find their coursesto be relevant and meaningful. When strongly agree and agree categories arecombined including the transposing of items 4, 7, and 16, the average for thesenine items is 93.5% while the average for all 22 items in the survey is 92.5%.�Historically, research studies have found that the interaction between motivationalconditions and instruction are strongly related to student achievement (Uguroglu &Walberg, 1979). To document the instruction side of this interaction, a second tierof items dealing directly with instruction and materials is included below. Theaverage proportion of agreement for the eight items is 92.0% suggesting thatstudents are also satisfied with the content of their courses.

ITEMS RELATED TO INSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS

QUESTIONSTRONGLYAGREE AGREE

TOTALAGREE

2. Course text was a good resource for achieving thecourse objectives.

35.8%

46.3%

82.1%

4. The teacher was a skilled instructor. 73.7% 20.0% 93.7% 6. Course module and syllabus served as an effective

learning guide.

25.3%

55.8%

81.1%16. This course was well taught. 70.5% 23.2% 93.7%17. The teaching methods in this course helped me to

learn.

43.2%

52.6%

95.8%18. Grading standards for this course required college-

level performance.

52.6%

42.1%

94.7%21. The way I have been evaluated in this course, thus

far, seems fair.

53.2%

44.7%

97.9%22. The way I have been evaluated in this course, thus

far, seems sensitive to my capabilities.

44.1%

52.7%

96.8%

The average for these eight items is 92.0%.

ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES�With the exception of placing two items in the past tense, the same items in thecurrent student survey were in the alumni survey. Because this part of the study isretrospective, a fifth response, “cannot adequately remember,” was added to theresponses. Alumni were asked to evaluate only the courses they had completed inCorporate Finance, Management, and/or Management of Human Resources.Approximately 92.7% had completed the Management course; 79.6% hadcompleted the Corporate Finance course; and 80.3% had completed theManagement of Human Resources course.�When alumni were asked to choose two primary reasons for attending RegisUniversity or Waynesburg College, the four most common responses were:accelerated courses (65.7%), type of programs available (28.5.0%), location(25.5%), and academic reputation (29.3%). Although the reasons chosen by alumniare similar to those listed by current students, the top two – accelerated coursesand type of program – appear to be less a factor for alumni than for currentstudents. Accelerated courses were a primary reason for 80.4% of the currentstudents and type of programs was a primary reason for 65.0%.

11

In terms of overall satisfaction, alumni appear slightly more positive than currentstudents. When asked, “If you could start college over, would you choose toattend this college?” about 82.5% of the alumni answered in the affirmative, 13.1%were uncertain, and 4.3% responded probably no. (Table 1)�Alumni also responded very positively when asked about the details of theirexperience. When strongly agree and agree categories are combined (with thetransposing of responses in the second item) for the nine items of particularimportance to motivation in the survey, average agreement is 91.1%. The averageagreement for the eight items dealing more directly with instruction and materials(transposing the second and fourth items in that tier) is 88.0%. The correspondingaverage agreement for all 22 items in the survey is 89.9%.

�CURRENT STUDENT LEARNING AND CONTENT MASTERY

�Faculty experts were selected according to the following criteria: an experienced,well-respected teacher of accelerated courses, who had experience teaching aswell as professional practice in the disciplines represented by the course (e.g.accountants, business consultants, etc.). The three faculty experts who assessedCorporate Finance were Bev Carlin, Richard Friedman, and Mike Miller. The threefaculty experts who assessed Management and Management of Human Resourceswere Don Bush, Jr., Rick Rokosz, and June Twinam. All faculty experts areaffiliated with Regis University.

For the three courses selected for this investigation – Management, Management ofHuman Resources, and Corporate Finance – faculty experts created summativequestions and case studies (Appendix C) based on two or more of the majorobjectives of these courses. To evaluate performance in each course, the facultyexperts worked collaboratively to determine the dimensions of performance andthe criteria for assessment; then used these rubrics to assess the students’ writtenquestion and case study responses. A researcher facilitated this process, but wascareful to make certain all assessment items and the criteria and their applicationwere strictly governed by the mutual dialogue and eventual agreement of thefaculty experts themselves. Each assessment required students to demonstratecritical thinking and apply a learned knowledge base. Students had to analyze thecases, find the most pertinent issues and evidence, relate this understanding totheory, and offer recommendations or resolve problems. The dimensions ofperformance are shown in the table below and the criteria used to assess thequality of student responses are available in Appendix D.��

DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE BY COURSE�

DIMENSION MANAGEMENTMANAGEMENT OF

HUMAN RESOURCESCORPORATEFINANCE

Critical Thinking X X �Practical Application X �Knowledge Base X X �Writing Skills X X XCalculation � XInterpretation � � XRecommendations � � X

12

These questions and case studies were administered to the students according to astandardized script in the last two hours of the final class session. The instructorswere not aware of the contents of the questions and case studies until the thirdweek of the five-week courses. The course instructors, independent of the facultyexperts’ evaluations, graded the final performance assessments, none of whichcounted for more than 20% of a student’s final grade. Neither the instructors’assessments nor the students’ grades were included in the outcomes measuresused in this study and this information was not available to the faculty experts.Faculty experts also did not know the identities of the students or theirdemographic characteristics.

The faculty experts assessed each student response for each dimension ofperformance. The scoring system was 4 points for excellent, 3 points for verygood, 2 points for satisfactory, and 1 point for not acceptable. In order to avoidconfusion with the distinctly different meaning of grades or grade point averages,the average rating of the three faculty experts for each dimension of performancewas multiplied by a factor of 2. Table 2 indicates the numerical range of scores,the corresponding qualitative values, and the number and percentage of studentswhose average scores across all applied dimensions fell within each range. Apaired comparison method was used to test inter-rater reliability for each course.Agreement was 90% or higher for all courses.

�

TABLE 2INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AVERAGES

ACROSS ALL APPLIED DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE(N = 93)

RANGE OF AVERAGE EXPERT RATINGS NO. OF STUDENTS % OF TOTAL7-8 (near excellent to excellent) 3 3.26-6.99 (very good to near excellent) 13 14.05-5.99 (more than satisfactory to very good) 15 16.14-4.99 (satisfactory to more than satisfactory) 29 31.23-3.99 (less than satisfactory to satisfactory) 32 34.42-2.99 (not acceptable to less than satisfactory) 1 1.1

�

Table 3 shows the average rating by faculty experts for each dimension ofperformance by course. In all dimensions of performance across the three courses,the average ratings by faculty experts of student work ranged from satisfactory tovery good. Keeping in mind that the instructors, academic performance tasks,faculty experts, and criteria for performance differ for the three courses, theaverage for all students across all applied dimensions of performance was 4.59(more than satisfactory). Writing Skills, which were assessed in each course, hadaverage ratings that ranged from more than satisfactory to very good with anaverage for the three courses of 5.59 (very good). In general, nearly two out ofthree students (64.5%) in this study met a standard of satisfactory to excellent forcourse work at the college level as judged by faculty experts in their field of study.�

13

TABLE 3AVERAGES FOR EACH DIMENSION OF PERFORMANCE

FOR CURRENT STUDENTS BY COURSE

�

COURSENO. OF

SECTIONSNO. OF

STUDENTS DIMENSIONAVG.SCORE

QUALITATIVEVALUE

�CorporateFinance

�3

�30

�CalculationInterpretationRecommendationsWriting Skills

6.204.844.136.00

�Very GoodMore Than Satis.SatisfactoryVery Good

�Management

�3

�30

�Critical ThinkingPractical Appl.Knowledge BaseWriting Skills

3.804.003.805.40

�SatisfactorySatisfactorySatisfactoryMore Than Satis.

�Management of HumanResources

�3

�33

�Critical ThinkingKnowledge BaseWriting Skills

3.803.605.40

�SatisfactorySatisfactoryMore Than Satis.

14

DISCUSSION

The self-report survey consistently indicates that current adult students' attitudestoward the accelerated courses are positive. Nine out of ten students agree that thecourses are effective, taught well and foster motivational conditions. These positiveassessments are consistent college student evaluations of courses generally (Astin,1993) and suggest that the courses are assessed at least as favorably as traditionalcourses.�Alumni perception of the accelerated courses in Management, Human ResourceManagement, and Corporate Finance is also positive with nine out of ten alumnirating their courses highly. Although these courses were part of their majors andtheir positive attitudes may be related to this fact (Astin, 1993), these alumni (n =137) were randomly selected from among 200 graduates from Waynesburg Collegeand Regis University. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these perceptionsare representative of the alumni population as a whole.�Because self-report surveys are often criticized for having limited validity,documentation of the competence of current students’ learning provides moresubstantial evidence of the effectiveness of accelerated courses. The tasks andcriteria created by the faculty experts were rigorous. Based on the objectives forthe three courses in this study, 64.5% of the students provided evidence oflearning and subject mastery that was rated from satisfactory to excellent. Theiraverage across all applied dimensions of performance for each course was 4.60, arating by faculty experts of more than satisfactory performance.

Because no nationally standardized tests exist for the subject areas (Osterlind,1997) in this study, there is little opportunity to find a wider context for comparingthe quality of these achievements, but most students in the accelerated coursesstudied here appear to learn satisfactorily and meet the challenge of collegecoursework.

15

PART IIA COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

FROMPHASE 1 (1996-1997), PHASE 3 (1998-1999), AND PHASE 5 (2000-2001)

BACKGROUND

The schools studied in Phase 1 were Regis University (Denver), Davenport College(Grand Rapids), and Emmanuel College (Boston). The schools in Phase 3 wereRegis University, St. Ambrose University (Davenport), and Rosemont College(Philadelphia). The schools in Phase 5 were Regis University, Walsh University(Akron), and Waynesburg College (Pittsburgh area).

SELECTION OF CURRENT STUDENTS AND ALUMNI FOR PHASES 1, 3, AND 5

The sample sizes (Table 4) for the students involved in the investigation of currentattitudes was 122 in Phase 1, 105 in Phase 3, and 93 in Phase 5. In Phase 1, arandom sample of 121 of the 800 students who graduated in 1995 and 1996 fromthe business management programs of the three schools were sent surveys; 87alumni returned surveys, for a 71.9% response rate. In Phase 3, a random sampleof 128 of the 439 students who graduated in 1997 from the business managementprograms of the three schools were sent surveys; 92 surveys were returned, for a71.9% response rate. In Phase 5, a random sample of 200 of the 456 students whograduated from the business management graduates of Regis University and WalshUniversity in 1998 were sent surveys, 137 alumni returned surveys, representing a68.5% response rate.

TABLE 4SAMPLE SIZES FOR PHASES 1, 3, AND 5

CURRENT STUDENTSSURVEYED

ALUMNISURVEYED

TOTAL ALUMNI FROM BUSINESSMANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Phase 1 122 121 800Phase 3 105 128 439Phase 5 93 200 456

For the three studies only current students were given summative performanceassessments based on their courses. In Phase 1, due to the limited amount of timefaculty experts could volunteer, only 59 student assessments were evaluated.However, since most of the faculty experts in Phases 3 and 5 were the same as inPhase 1, and because the case studies and criteria were the same, less training anddiscussion was necessary to reach agreement. The additional time made availableby these circumstances allowed the faculty experts to assess all the students inPhases 3 and 5.

16

COMPARISONS AND ANALYSIS

Results from Phases 1, 3, and 5 provide observations of impact and outcomes ofaccelerated courses in business management programs at seven colleges anduniversities. However, the design of these studies is not experimental and currentstudents have not been randomly assigned to the courses that have been assessed.In addition, each school has its own cultural and regional differences that are notdocumented in this data set. Therefore, combining these results into one reporttells us something about the overall effectiveness of accelerated courses andprograms, but a statistical comparison of the phases would be overreaching thebounds of a valid comparison.

The comparability of the alumni populations is also limited. Although the alumnisamples represent all the graduates from each school’s business managementprogram and the alumni surveyed were randomly selected from these populations,the cultural and regional differences make a statistical comparison of the phasesinvalid. We can, however, make generalizations about alumni perceptions of theiraccelerated courses. We can also compare Regis University alumni across thephases because they were randomly selected in each study. These results provideattitudinal information about a broad range of experience with accelerated coursesin Regis University's School for Professional Studies business management programover a five-year period, 1996 to 2001.

PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF CURRENT STUDENTS IN PHASES 1, 3, AND 5

POPULATION COMPARISONS AMONG CURRENT STUDENTS

Demographically, the primary difference between the current student populationsin Phases 1, 3, and 5 (Table 5) is that the proportion of racial and ethnic minorityenrollment increased from 13.2% in Phase 1 to 28.9% in Phase 5. Since this iscombined data for three institutions, we do not know whether this changerepresents a difference in the overall student population or a difference in thepopulations of the schools in each sample. However, interviews with faculty andadministrators from the School for Professional Studies (SPS) at Regis Universityand New Ventures of Regis University indicated that the proportion of adultstudents of color is increasing in many of the colleges in their network.

The majority of the current students in all three phases are women, but theproportion is slightly less in Phase 5 than in the other two. Again, becausedifferent institutions are included in each phase and the numbers are relativelysmall, it is difficult to tell if this is a trend in adult student enrollment or an artifactof the sample. However, the ages of the three populations are relatively similarwith the largest difference being only 1.5 years between 37.2 years in Phase 3 and35.7 years in Phase 5.

17

CURRENT STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

In general, current student attitudes toward the accelerated programs are verypositive across the three studies. Nearly four out of five students indicate that theaccelerated format was a primary reason for attending their university or college,and in all three phases, about three out of four students would return to theirrespective schools if they could start college again (Table 5). Likewise, studentassessments of the individual courses are also positive for all three studies. Whenstrongly agree and agree categories are combined (including the necessarytranspositions) for all 22 items in the current student survey, average agreement forstudents in Phases 1, 3, and 5 is 95.0%, 92.2%, and 92.5%, respectively (Table 6). Itis particularly noteworthy that 97.5% indicate that their course was a valuablelearning experience. The consistency of these responses suggests that nine out often students at these institutions find their accelerated courses to be motivatinglearning experiences with effective instruction.

Phase 1 Current Students 1996/1997



N=122 N=105 N=93% % %

Average Age (not a %) 35.9 37.2 35.7Caucasian 79.5 70.5 52.6Hispanic 6.6 11.4 12.4African American 4.1 11.4 3.1Asian/Pacific Island 2.5 4.8 11.3American Indian 0 0 2.1Female 72.1 69.5 55.7Male 27.9 30.5 44.3Reasons

Accelerated 78.7 88.6 80.4Type of Program 38.5 36.2 64.9Academic Reputation 36.1 32.4 36.1Location 33.6 29.5 5.2Advice of Parents 1.6 1.0 1.0Atmosphere 0.8 1.9 7.2

Choose this college again?Yes 83.6 74.3 75.8Uncertain 13.1 20.0 18.9No 3.3 5.7 5.3

Same major?Yes 77.8 67.3 61.1Uncertain 12.3 17.3 15.8No 9.9 15.4 23.2

Demographics & Choices

TABLE 5DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON

SURVEY AVERAGES OF CURRENT STUDENTSIN PHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/1999) AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)

18

Perceptions and Attitudes of Alumni in Phases 1, 3, and 5

POPULATION COMPARISONS AMONG ALUMNI

There is little difference in the demographic characteristics of the alumnipopulations in Phases 1, 3, and 5 (Table 7). The average age ranges from 38.4 inPhase 1 to 40.3 in Phase 5 and in all three studies at least four out of five alumniare white. As in the current student population, Hispanic students are the largestethnic minority in all three phases although they still represent a relatively smallproportion of the total. Nearly two out of three graduates are women – about thesame as the proportion of women in the current student population.

TABLE 6QUESTION COMPARISON

SURVEY AVERAGES OF CURRENT STUDENTSIN PHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/1999), AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)


Phase 5 Current Students 2000/2001 Combined

N=105 N=93 Average% % %

1 98.4 98.1 95.7 97.52 93.4 91.4 82.1 89.53 100 99.0 98.9 99.4

4 ** 95.1 89.5 93.7 92.95 93.4 92.2 92.6 92.86 92.6 86.7 81.1 87.3

7 ** 100 97.1 95.8 97.88 89.3 91.4 77.9 86.79 95.1 87.6 80.9 88.5

10 92.6 92.4 94.7 93.111 89.3 88.6 92.5 90.012 97.5 97.1 97.8 97.513 93.4 89.5 93.6 92.214 96.7 96.2 94.6 95.915 93.4 91.4 91.4 92.2

16** 94.3 84.8 93.7 91.017 95.9 84.6 95.8 92.218 97.5 95.2 94.7 95.919 98.3 98.1 97.9 98.120 93.4 96.2 94.8 94.721 97.5 93.3 97.9 96.222 91.8 87.6 96.8 91.9

Average Proportion Agreement

95.0 92.2 92.5 93.3

*Unless otherwise indicated, the means combine strongly agree and agree responses.**Strongly disagree and disagree


N=122Question # %

19

TABLE 7DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISION

SURVEY AVERAGES OF ALUMNI INPHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/1999), AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)

FOR COURSES IN THE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

In general, when alumni attitudes toward the courses are examined for eachphase, the positive student perceptions are sustained over time and region. Whenstrongly agree and agree categories are combined (including the necessarytranspositions) for all 22 items in the survey, the combined average agreement forthe three studies is 87.7 % with no statistically significant differences between anytwo phases (Table 8). Ninety-one percent of all alumni agreed or strongly agreedthat these courses were valuable learning experiences and four out of five of themwould return to their respective colleges if they could start college again, a higherratio than for current students. This consistency indicates that alumni from thebusiness management programs at the six different schools have positive attitudestoward their courses and provides evidence that the motivational conditions ofinclusion, positive attitude, meaning and competence are being met continuouslyalong with effective teaching in these accelerated courses. Since the alumni sampleis much larger (n = 1665) and has experienced a much wider range of instructorsand teaching methods than have current students, their perceptions afford a morevalid assessment of the quality of the courses throughout the schools studied.

Phase 1 Alumni 1996/1997



N=87 N=92 (N=137)% % %

Average Age (not a %) 38.4 39.2 40.3Caucasian 83.9 84.8 89.1Hispanic 6.9 6.5 4.4African American 2.3 3.3 3.6Asian/Pacific Island 5.7 3.3 0.7American Indian 1.1 1.1 0.7Female 69.0 64.1 68.6Male 31.0 35.9 30.7Reasons

Accelerated 82.8 79.3 65.7Type of Program 39.1 37.0 28.5Academic Reputation 31.0 29.3 29.3Location 35.6 39.1 25.5Advice of Parents 0 0 5.8Atmosphere 0 0 0.7




20

* Unless otherwise indicated, the means combine strongly agree and agree responses.** Strongly disagree and disagree.

POPULATION COMPARISON AMONG REGIS UNIVERSITY ALUMNI

Since the alumni from Regis University have been studied in each phase and arerandomly selected from all business management graduates, we have theopportunity to see if the populations and their attitudes shift over time (Table 9).Demographically, populations are similar, but the proportion of white alumniappears to increase over time. This statistic should be monitored to determine ifthe pattern constitutes a trend or if it is a response bias in the sample.Like the current students, Regis alumni appear to be very satisfied with theirexperience. Nearly nine out of ten indicate that they would attend Regis Universityif they could start college again.


Phase 5 Alumni 2000/2001 Combined

N=92 (N=137) Average

% % %

1 92.5 92.8 90.6 91.82 78.9 84.7 89.1 85.03 88.6 92.4 94.1 92.1

4 ** 82.1 81.1 91.0 85.75 87.1 89.6 88.5 88.46 75.3 76.1 81.3 78.1

7 ** 86.6 85.6 88.9 87.38 89.4 89.5 86.2 88.09 82.7 90.5 92.8 89.310 90.5 86.0 89.7 88.911 85.4 84.2 89.4 86.812 88.5 94.5 97.0 93.913 85.1 88.3 89.4 87.914 92.5 91.1 92.9 92.315 80.8 87.5 88.8 86.2

16** 81.7 83.3 83.7 83.017 78.4 84.4 84.8 82.918 89.6 94.7 92.2 92.219 82.6 91.1 94.9 90.420 84.5 94.7 89.8 89.821 84.6 91.5 97.8 92.322 70.4 75.1 84.2 77.8

Average Proportion Agreement 84.4 87.7 89.9 87.7


N=87Question Number %


SURVEY AVERAGES OF ALUMNIIN PHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/1999), AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)


21

REGIS UNIVERSITY ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES

Responses for Regis alumni alone are very similar to the pooled responses (Table10). At least 91% agree that their courses were valuable learning experiences, andnine of our ten alumni indicate that if they could start college again, they wouldattend Regis University.

There are, however, two significant findings in the trend analysis of the detailedquestions. For item 21 on the self-report survey, The way I was evaluated in thiscourse was fair, the percentage of agreement rose from 85.0 percent in Phase 1 to93.1 percent (p < .03) in Phase 5. For item 22, The way I was evaluated in thiscourse was sensitive to my capabilities, the percentage of agreement rose from 67.4percent in Phase 1 to 79.0 percent (p < .02) in Phase 5. Thus, alumni from RegisUniversity appear to increasingly see their assessments as more fair, and moresensitive to their capabilities and, possibly, learning styles. This is importantbecause researchers met with faculty and administrators at the end of Phase 3 todiscuss “making course evaluations more performance-oriented and more sensitive

TABLE 9DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON

SURVEY AVERAGES OF REGIS ALUMNI IN PHASES1, 3, 5

Phase 1 Alumni Phase 3 Alumni Phase 5 Alumni(N=47) (N=70) (N= 117)

% % %Average Age (not a %) 39.1 38.8 40.2Caucasian 80.9 85.7 87.2Hispanic 5.7 4.4 5.1African American 4.3 1.4 4.3Asian/Pacific Island 4.2 4.3 0American Indian 2.1 1.4 0.9Unkown 0 2.8 2.5Female 76.6 60.0 70.9Male 23.4 40.0 28.2Reasons

Accelerated 83 75.7 76.9Type of Program 38.3 38.6 28.2Academic Reputation 36.2 31.4 34.2Location 31.9 38.6 25.6Size 0 2.9 6.0Atmosphere 0 0 0




22

to different profiles of intelligence” (p. 17, Wlodkowski & Mauldin, 1999). Theseresults suggest that this change may have taken place.

However, the rating of the course module’s effectiveness as a learning guide (Item6) is lowest of all the items. This also was discussed after Phase 3 but noimprovement in alumni perception is noted. According to administrators andfaculty the modules for these courses have been revised as of 1999, and thealumni surveyed in these studies would not have experienced these revisions.

A paired samples test for alumni ratings across the three studies indicates that theaverage rating is significantly higher in Phase 5 than in Phase 1 (p < .001). Thissuggests that the Regis alumni surveyed in 2001 saw their courses as more highlymotivating and more effectively taught than did the alumni surveyed in 1997.

* Unless otherwise indicated, the means combine strongly agree and agree responses.** Strongly disagree and disagree.

Phase 1 Alumni 1996/1997Phase 3 Alumni

1998/1999Phase 5 Alumni

2000/2001 Combined(N=47) (N=70) (N=117) Average

% % %

1 92.1 92.6 89.8 91.12 75.8 85.5 81.8 81.73 89.0 92.0 90.0 90.4

4 ** 85.0 79.8 84.1 83.05 87.9 89.8 88.0 88.56 78.0 74.6 69.0 72.5

7 ** 88.0 85.5 77.8 82.28 89.7 87.2 86.0 87.19 82.0 90.2 86.8 86.9

10 95.0 86.7 88.0 89.011 87.8 86.7 85.0 86.112 92.0 94.1 91.2 92.213 82.0 87.3 84.1 84.614 93.0 90.9 88.7 90.215 83.3 87.4 82.9 84.3

16** 84.0 84.5 81.7 83.017 74.2 81.7 80.3 79.518 88.0 94.3 90.1 90.919 79.0 90.3 86.6 86.220 85.0 89.7 86.8 87.321 85.0 92.5 93.1 91.322 67.4 71.4 79.0 74.4

Average Proportion Agreement 84.7 87.0 85.0 85.6

Question Number %


SURVEY AVERAGES OF REGIS ALUMNI INPHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/1999), AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)


23

CURRENT STUDENT LEARNING AND CONTENT MASTERY

Table 11 shows average scores of the individual students across all applieddimensions of performance for all courses studied in Phases 1, 3, and 5. Despitethe variation in schools, regions, instructors, teaching methods, and students foreach course studied over the five-year span, there are consistencies among thefindings that bear generalization. First, most students in accelerated courses learnsatisfactorily and in a manner that meets the challenge of college coursework.

When performance scores are combined for phases 1, 3 and 5, more than twothirds (69.3%) of the students averages 4.00 (satisfactory) or better on alldimensions of performance while a fourth (25.7%) averages 6.00 (very good) orbetter on the same measures.

When we examine performance ratings by dimension, we find that the averagescores range from satisfactory to very good. The average for all 257 students acrossall dimensions of performance is 4.9 (more than satisfactory) and the average forwriting skills is 5.5 (very good). Seven percent were found to have writing skillsthat were rated as not acceptable by faculty experts and 19 % were rated as nearlyexcellent to excellent. These scores compare favorably with results from TheCollege Basic Academic Subjects Examination (BASE) Study (Osterlind, 1997), thefirst attempt to record national college student achievement in general education.Based primarily on a traditional college population, this study found thatapproximately 12% of the students were inept writers while only 3 % were skilledones. Thus, a rating of near excellent for 19% of the students in this study suggeststhat Regis University and New Ventures’ Partner Schools’ students are at least

TABLE 11INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AVERAGES ACROSS ALL APPLIED DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCEPHASE 1 (1996/1997)[N=59], PHASE 3 (1998/1999) [N=105], AND PHASE 5

(2000/2001) [N=93]

No. of Students and Their % of Total

Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 5 Phases 1, 3 & 5

N % N % N % N %

7-8 (near excellent to excellent) 7 11.9 15 14.3 3 3.2 25 9.7

6-6.99 (very good to near excellent) 15 25.4 13 12.4 13 14.0 41 16.0

5-5.99 (more than satisfactory to very good) 12 20.3 18 17.1 15 16.1 45 17.5

4-4.99 (satisfactory to more than satisfactory) 13 22.0 25 23.8 29 31.2 67 26.1

3-3.99(less than satisfactory to satisfactory) 7 11.9 26 24.8 32 34.4 65 25.3

2 -2.99(not acceptable to less than satisfactory) 5 8.5 8 7.6 1 1.1 14 5.4

Percentage of S's averaging 4.0 or better 47 79.7 71 67.6 60 65.0 178 69.3

Percentage of S's averaging 6.0 or better 22 37.3 28 26.7 16 17.2 66 25.7

Range of Averages (Expert's Ratings)

24

comparable in terms of writing skills to students nationally and they may beslightly better. When asked why these older students might have superior writingskills, faculty reported that the students probably developed these skills at theirjobs prior to entering accelerated programs.

Although overall scores are quite good, Knowledge Base has less than satisfactoryscores in Phase 3 with averages of 3.30 in Management and Management ofHuman Resources. Although these scores were slightly higher in Phase 5, wesuggest that faculty and administrators continue to monitor and support instructors’effectiveness in teaching theory and research for these courses.

Of the courses studied, Corporate Finance has the best overall performance scoreswith students averaging very good in both Calculation (6.39) and Writing Skills(6.31) and more than satisfactory in Interpretation (5.44) and (Quality of)Recommendations (4.89). It is possible that the higher scores of Corporate Financestudents are due to their experience and sophistication as more seasoned andadvanced students.

TABLE 12AVERAGES FOR DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE BY COURSE

PHASE 1 (1996/1997), PHASE 3 (1998/19999), AND PHASE 5 (2000/2001)

Phase I Phase III Phase V Overall

Dimension of PerformanceNo. of

studentsPerf. Avg. Std.

No. of students

Perf. Avg. Std.

No. of students

Perf. Avg. Std.

No. of students

Perf. Avg. Std.

Management Course 20 23 30 73 Critical Thinking 5.60 v.g 4.10 s. 3.80 s. 4.39 s. Practical Application 5.20 m.t.s 4.00 s. 4.00 s. 4.33 s. Knowledge Base 6.20 v.g 3.30 l.t.s. 3.80 s. 4.30 s. Writing Skills 5.60 v.g 4.70 m.t.s. 5.40 m.t.s. 5.23 m.t.s.

Management of H.R.Course 20 42 33 95 Critical Thinking 4.20 s. 4.20 s. 3.80 s. 4.06 s. Knowledge Base 4.80 m.t.s 3.30 l.t.s. 3.60 s. 3.72 s. Writing Skills 4.60 m.t.s 4.80 m.t.s. 5.40 m.t.s. 4.97 m.t.s.

Corporate Finance Course 19 40 30 89 Calculation 5.20 m.t.s 7.10 n.e. 6.20 v.g 6.39 v.g. Interpretation 5.40 m.t.s 5.90 v.g. 4.84 m.t.s. 5.44 m.t.s. Recommendations 5.20 m.t.s 5.30 m.t.s. 4.16 s. 4.89 m.t.s. Writing Skills 6.80 n.e. 6.30 v.g. 6.00 v.g 6.31 v.g.

Legend of Abbreviations Range of Averages (Experts' rating)

7 - 8 (Near excellent to excellent) n.e. to e.6 - 6.99 (Very good to near excellent) v.g. to n.e.5 - 5.99 (more than satisfactory to very good) m.t.s. to v.g.4 - 4.99 (satisfactory to more than staisfactory) s. to m.t.s.3 - 3.99 (less than satisfactory to satisfactory) l.t.s. to s.2 - 2.99 (not acceptable to less than satisfactory) n.a. to l.t.s.

Overall 4.92Writing 5.51

25

SUMMARY OF PHASES 1, 3, AND 5

CURRENT STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

• The findings across Phases 1, 3, and 5 are consistent: current students havevery positive attitudes toward accelerated courses.

• Ninety-eight percent of all students agreed or strongly agreed that thesecourses were a valuable learning experience and three out of four of themwould return to their respective colleges if they could start college again.

• Generally, nine out of ten students perceive their accelerated courses aswell taught and fostering the motivational conditions of inclusion, positiveattitude, meaning, and competence to encourage their learning.

ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS

• The findings for Phases 1, 3, and 5 indicate alumni also have very positiveattitudes toward accelerated courses.

• Ninety-one percent of all alumni agreed or strongly agreed that thesecourses were valuable learning experiences and four out of five of themwould return to their respective colleges if they could start college again, aratio better than the one found for current students.

• The random samples of alumni drawn in these three studies represent allthe graduates of the Business Management Programs for six schools from1995 through 1998, a population of approximately 1665 alumni. Since thispopulation is much larger and has experienced a much wider range ofinstructors than have current students, their perceptions afford a more validunderstanding of the quality of courses throughout Regis University and avariety of New Ventures’ Partner Schools.

REGIS UNIVERSITY ALUMNI PERCEPTIONS

• Regis alumni are very satisfied with their education and experience in theBusiness Management Program. Nine out of ten alumni indicated that ifthey could start college again, they would attend Regis University.

• A trend analysis revealed four important findings:

1. When compared with alumni surveyed in 1997, a significantly higherpercentage of alumni surveyed in 2001 see their course evaluations asfair.

2. When compared with alumni surveyed in 1997, a significantly higherpercentage of alumni in 2001 see their course evaluations as sensitive totheir capabilities. These positive shifts are important to note becausethey support the work done by faculty and administrators to makecourses deliberate in linking activities, outcomes, and assessments.

26

3. Among the combined averages for all items measured, the coursemodule as an effective learning guide receives the lowest percentage ofagreement (72.5%). This finding was discussed as a goal forimprovement in earlier studies, but no improvement in alumniperception is noted. According to administrators and faculty, revising themodules for these courses probably took full effect in October 1999.Since there are no alumni in this study who have graduated since thisdate, results of this intervention could not be assessed. Moduleeffectiveness and use needs further monitoring.

4. The Regis alumni who graduated in 1998 see their courses as even morehighly motivating and more effectively taught than do those alumni whograduated in 1995 and 1996.

CURRENT STUDENT LEARNING AND CONTENT MASTERY

• Most students in accelerated courses learn satisfactorily and in a mannerthat meets the challenge of college coursework. When performance scoresare combined for Phases 1, 3, and 5, two out of three students (69.3%) meeta standard of satisfactory to excellent. The average score for the 257students assessed in Phases 1, 3, and 5 across all dimensions ofperformance is 4.92, a faculty expert rating of more than satisfactory.

• Writing skills have been assessed in every course to date. The averagescore for all students assessed is 5.51, a performance designated by facultyexperts as very good. It appears that Regis University and New Ventures’Partner Schools’ students are at least comparable or better in their writingskills when compared to students nationally. Faculty report that their adultstudents have probably developed these skills as part of their jobs prior toentering accelerated programs.

• Some findings merit concerned attention. The lowest performance scorewas found for Knowledge Base: the student’s capacity to apply theory andresearch from the course. Student performance for this dimension was lessthan satisfactory in Phase 3 for both the Management and Management ofHuman Resources courses. Preparation of faculty should include supportingtheir effectiveness in delivering curriculum that focuses on theory andresearch. These courses are vulnerable to faculty and students whosepractical experience may make the need for theory and research seem lessevident.

27

CONCLUSION

The findings of these studies reinforce most previous assessments of acceleratedformats - adult students appreciate their efficiency and effectiveness (Aslanian,2001; Wlodkowski & Kasworm, in press). Both alumni and current studentsbelieve that their courses are well taught and motivating. At the end of five yearsof study (1996-2001), we have modest but consistent evidence that adult studentsat Regis University and New Ventures’ Partner Schools learn satisfactorily and in amanner that meets the challenge of college coursework. We also have evidencethat accelerated courses and programs are well received and effective in PuertoRico where Spanish is the primary language.

Ongoing outcomes research is essential to maintaining and improving theeffectiveness of accelerated courses and programs. Less than satisfactory learningassessments help identify areas where modules and instruction need to beimproved.

Conventional wisdom and adult learning theory (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999)suggest that personal motivation, work experience, and self-direction form a set ofpersonal traits and skills that positively interact with accelerated instruction tofacilitate effective learning. Other studies conducted at Regis University(Wlodkowski, Mauldin, & Gahn, 2001) indicate that adult students are more likelyto get better grades when they are white, married, older, have strong self-regulation skills, and feel connected to faculty.

This research on accelerated courses provides some insight into the complexrelationship between learning and time. These studies suggest that shorteralternative formats may facilitate learning as effectively as traditional academicschedules and for a large variety of students.

ISSUES FOR FURTHER STUDY

All courses, students, and alumni involved in these studies were part of theBusiness Management programs of their colleges and universities. Studying thelearning and attitudes of adult students in accelerated courses in other disciplinesof higher education is paramount to creating a body of research that informs theuse of accelerated formats throughout postsecondary education.

A shortcoming of these studies is that they did not compare the performance orattitudes of adult students in accelerated formats with adult students in traditionalformats of the same courses. Nor did they compare younger traditional agestudents (18 –22 year of age) in these same circumstances. No courses at theschools studied offered large enough samples (adults in traditional courses oryounger students in accelerated courses) to make these comparisons. Thesestudies need to be done.

Also absent in these studies are the younger non-traditional students who workfull time, have financial independence, and may have families of their own. Thesestudents are likely to be the next wave of students in accelerated programs. Verylittle is known about their success in accelerated courses.

28

These studies focus on students who are or have been successful in acceleratedprograms. They investigate currently enrolled students and graduates ofaccelerated programs. Yet about 60 % of the students in the School forProfessional Studies at Regis University leave without getting a degree(Wlodkowski, Mauldin, & Gahn, 2001). This attrition rate is similar to the 62 % forlarge urban state colleges and universities (American Association of State Collegesand Universities, 1995). Studies to date (Wlodkowski, Mauldin, and Campbell,2002) indicate that adult students cite not enough money, conflict with job andstudies, home responsibilities, and studies being too time consuming as majorreasons for leaving Regis University.

However, these same studies indicate that additional financial aid, better advising,and alternative scheduling such as weekend courses would help adult students tostay in school. Research from other studies confirms that positive involvement withpeers and faculty encourages adult learners to persist (New England AdultResearch Network, 1999).

We have much more to learn about how to help adults to persist in acceleratedprograms. Implementing and studying innovative forms of support andintervention to retain adult students should be an extension of the studies in thisreport. In this regard, the School for Professional Studies has initiated Education205: Adult Learning, a course designed for newly admitted students to familiarizethem with the challenges of accelerated learning and effective methods foraddressing those issues.

29

REFERENCES

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Access, Inclusion, andEquity: Imperatives for America’s Campuses. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of State Colleges and Universities, 1997.

Aslanian, C. B. Adult Students Today. New York: The College Board, 2001.

Astin, A. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1993.

Brockett, R.G. and Hiemstra, R. Self-Direction in Adult Learning: Perspectives onTheory, Research, and Practice. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.

Kasworm, C. “A Case Study of Adult Learner Experiences of an Accelerated DegreeProgram.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research AssociationConference, Seattle, April 2001.

Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. Learning in Adulthood. (2nd. ed.) San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1999.

New England Adult Research Network. Factors Influencing Adult StudentPersistence in Undergraduate Degree Programs. Amherst, MA: Victoria Dowling,University of Massachusetts, 1999.

Osterlind, S. J. A National Review of Scholastic Achievement in General Education: How Are We Doing and Why Should We Care? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education

Report (Vol. 25, No. 8). Washington, DC: The George Washington University,Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Pintrich, P. R. and Schunk, D. H. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, andApplications . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Scott, P. A., & Conrad, C. F. “A Critique of Intensive Courses and an Agenda forResearch.” In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory andResearch. Vol. 8, New York: Agathon Press, 1992.

Shafer, D. W. “A Qualitative Study of Adult and Traditional College Students’Perceptions of a Compressed and Traditional Length College Course.”Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1995.

Stratil, M. College Student Inventory. Iowa City, IA: Noel/Levitz, 1988.

Wlodkowski, R. J. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guidefor Teaching All Adults. (Rev. ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Wlodkowski, R. J. and Ginsberg, M. B. Diversity and Motivation: CulturallyResponsive Teaching . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Westover, T. “Accelerated Courses as a Learning Format forAdults.” The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 1999, 13 (1),1-20.

30

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Iturralde-Albert, L., & Mauldin, J. Report on AcceleratedLearning Project: Phase 4. Denver: Center for the Study of AcceleratedLearning, Regis University, 2000.

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Mauldin, J. E., & Gahn, S. W. Learning in the Fast Lane:Adult Learners’ Persistence and Success in Accelerated College Programs.Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education, 2001.

Wlodkowski, R. J. & Kasworm, C. (eds.). Accelerated Learning for Adults: ThePromise and Practice of Intensive Educational Formats. New Directions forAdult and Continuing Education, no. 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, in press.

Wolfe, A. “How a For-Profit University Can Be Invaluable to the Traditional LiberalArts.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington, DC: December 4, 1998,44, p. B4-B5.

31

APPENDIX AEND-OF COURSE EVALUATION

33

APPENDIX BALUMNI SURVEY

35

APPENDIX CCASE STUDY FOR CORPORATE FINANCE

ACCELERATED COMPANY COMPREHENSIVE PROBLEM

The Accelerated Company is a small manufacturing company that has been in business for about15 years. It has a growth record of several years, and is now looking to expand its market share.You have been asked to prepare an analysis and recommendations concerning thefinancial condition of the company for one of the potential investors. The investor’sprimary concern is profitability, but is interested in financial security as well. Using thefinancial statements attached, you are to do a thorough analysis of the data given. Calculate,explain, and interpret the results of thirteen different ratios and comment on theincluded trend data. You should include enough information in the summary of thecompany’s financial status to ensure the investor understands the meaning of theanalysis you have done.

Please make your recommendations as clear as possible and related to the above statedobjectives. Please be attentive to correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar as you writeyour answers

Industry Data 1995 1996

Sales Growth 14% 16%Current Ratio 2.1:1 2.2:1Quick Ratio 1.3:1 1.2:1Times Interest Earned 24 Times 22 TimesEquity Ratio 57% 56%Debt to Assets 43% 44%Price Earning Ratio 14 Times 12 TimesProfit Margin 4.3% 4.1%Gross Margin 18% 23%Return on Assets 10% 9%Return on Equity 19% 20%Receivables Turnover 5.1 Times 6.2 TimesAverage Collection Period 64 days 62 daysInventory Turnover 4.7 Times 4.2 TimesFixed Asset Turnover 6.4 Times 6.7 TimesTotal Asset Turnover 0.9 Times 1.3 TimesDividend Payout Ratio 36% 38%

36

Accelerated CompanyComparative Balance Sheets

as of Dec. 31, 1995 and Dec. 31, 1996

12/31/96 12/31/95

ASSETSCurrent Assets:

Cash $ 5,600 $ 4,200Marketable Securities 1,600 2,400Accounts Receivable, Net 61,600 52,000Inventories 76,000 64,000

Prepaid Expenses 900 600Total Current Assets $ 145,700 $ 123,200

Long-Term Assets:Plant and Equip., Net $ 46,000 $ 41,000Investments 1,800 1,600Patents 1,200 1,300

Total Long-Term Assets: 49,000 43,900TOTAL ASSETS $ 194,700 $ 167,100

LIABILITIESCurrent Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 22,000 24,200Notes Payable 5,800 3,000Accrued Liabilities 30,000 27,300

Total Current Liabilities $ 57,800 54,500

Long-Term Liabilities:Bonds Payable 81/2% 26,000 20,000TOTAL LIABILITIES 83,800 74,500

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY7% Preferred Stock $ 8,000 $ 8,000($100 par value)

Common stock ($5 par value) 21,000 14,000Paid-in Capital (in excess of par) 7,500 5,500Retained earnings 74,400 65,100Total Stockholders’ Equity $ 110,900 92,600TOTAL LIABILITY AND

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY $ 194,700 $ 167,100

37

Accelerated CompanyComparative Income Statements

For years ended 12/31/95 and 12/31/96

Year ending Year ending12/31/96 12/31/95

Sales, Net $ 412,000 $ 323,000Cost of Goods Sold 285,000 231,000 GROSS PROFIT $ 127,000 $ 92,000

Operating Expenses: Selling Expenses 39,400 27,100 G&A Expenses 50,300 33,400 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 89,700 $ 60,500

OPERATING INCOME $ 37,300 $ 31,500Interest Expense 2,200 1,900 Income Before taxes $ 35,100 $ 29,600Income tax 11,900 10,060 NET INCOME $ 23,200 $ 19,540

Earnings per share $ 5.52 $ 6.98

Accelerated CompanyComparative Statements of Retained Earnings

For years ending 12/31/95 and 12/31/96

Year Ending Year Ending 12/31/96 12/31/95

Retained Earnings (January 1) $ 65,100 $ 54,660

Net income for year 23,200 19,540 Total: $ 88,300 $ 74,200

Dividends:Preferred Stock $ 560 $ 560Common Stock 13,340 8,540 Total: $ 13,900 $ 9,100

RETAINED EARNINGS $ 74,400 $ 65,100 (Dec. 31)

38

Accelerated CompanyTrend Data

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Net Sales $132,240 $117,830 $196,300 $258,400 $323,000 $412,000Net Income 9,920 9,420 11,780 14,212 19,540 23,200

Accelerated CompanyAdditional Data

Price of Common Stock on 12/31/96: $38.64Price of Common Stock on 12/31/95: $42.50

39

APPENDIX C (CONT.)MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY

40

APPENDIX C (CONT.)MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

CASE STUDY

41

APPENDIX DDIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE

AND CRITERIA APPLIED TO STUDENT CASE STUDY RESPONSESFOR CORPORATE FINANCE

These dimensions of performance and criteria are applied to a written student financial analysis todetermine optimal use of a firm’s financial resources. The student has to perform a ratio analysisutilizing the four categories of profitability, asset utilization, liquidity, and debt utilization. Eachcalculated ratio is compared to industry measures and analyzed in light of past trends. Beforemaking recommendations the student must also perform a trend analysis to determine variances inthe ratios calculated.

Learning how to conduct the above analysis represents a major purpose of the course, CorporateFinance. The dimensions of performance used in this analysis are Calculation, Interpretation,Quality of Recommendations, and Writing Skills.

Calculation

Excellent: Student correctly calculates 11 to 13 of the given ratios.

Very Good: Student correctly calculates 9 to 10 of the given ratios.

Satisfactory: Student correctly calculates 7 to 8 of the given ratios.

Not Acceptable: Student correctly calculates 6 or less of the given ratios.

Interpretation

Excellent:Student can adequately demonstrate an understanding of at least 11 of the 13 ratios given.Student displays data in a format that indicates understanding of the four ratio categories:profitability ratios, asset utilization ratios, liquidity ratios, and debt utilization ratios. Inaddition, the format includes the specific company analyzed, the industry averages, and thestudent precisely summarizes the company’s financial status compared to the industryaverage. The student correctly performs his or her trend analysis and shows significantvariances in the ratios calculated.

Very Good:Student can adequately demonstrate an understanding of at least 9 of the 13 ratios given.Student displays data in a format that indicates understanding of three out of the four ratiocategories: profitability ratios, asset utilization ratios, liquidity ratios, and debt utilizationratios. In addition, the format includes the specific company analyzed, the industryaverages, and the student’s summarization of the company’s financial status compared tothe industry average is a nearly precise estimate. The student correctly performs his or hertrend analysis and shows significant variances in the ratios calculated.

Satisfactory:Student can adequately demonstrate an understanding of at least 7 of the 13 ratios given.Student displays data in a format that indicates understanding of at least 2 of the 4 ratiocategories: profitability ratios, asset utilization ratios, liquidity ratios, and debt utilizationratios. In addition, the format includes the specific company analyzed, the industryaverage, and the student’s summarization of the company’s financial status compared to

42

the industry average is an informative but not precise estimate. The student’s trend analysis isnot entirely accurate.

Not Acceptable:Student can adequately demonstrate an understanding of only 6 or less of the 13 ratiosgiven. Student displays data in a form that indicates misunderstanding of 3 or more of thefour ratio categories: profitability ratios, asset utilization ratios, liquidity ratios, and debtutilization ratios. The student’s summarization of the company’s financial status comparedto the industry average is not informative or precise and as a result his or her trend analysisis inaccurate.

Quality of Recommendations

Excellent:In light of the given data and ratios, the recommendations present a maximum utilizationof overall financial resources.

Very Good:In light of the given data and ratios, the recommendations present a very effective but lessthan maximum utilization of overall financial resources.

Satisfactory:In light of the given data and ratios, the recommendations present an effective utilization ofoverall financial resources.

Not Acceptable:In light of the given data and ratios, the recommendations present a wasteful utilization ofoverall financial resources.

Writing Skills

Excellent:With a total of two or less errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the studentcommunicates an effective analysis.

Very Good:Within a range of 7 to 3 errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the studentcommunicates an adequate analysis.

Satisfactory:Despite 8 or more errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the student communicateshis or her analysis.

Not Acceptable:Due to errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the student fails to communicate hisor her analysis.

Commentary

Return on assets and return on equity can be calculated using averages or end of the yearnumbers. Both should be kept in mind because student answers may vary from the textbookcalculations. Inventory turnover can be done two different ways as well.

43

APPENDIX D (CONT.)DIMENSIONS OF PERFORMANCE

AND CRITERIA APPLIED TO STUDENT CASE STUDY RESPONSESFOR MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Critical Thinking

Excellent:Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem rather than just the"symptoms" of the given case or situation; student discourse integrates the rational andscientific perspective with the intuitive and experiential perspective as a means to furtherinsight, understanding, or solution.

Very Good:Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but does not fullyintegrate the rational and scientific perspective with the intuitive and experientialperspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.

Satisfactory:Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but there is nointegration of the rational and scientific perspective with the intuitive and experientialperspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.

Not Acceptable:Student discourse renders an understanding of only symptoms based on personalexperience or intuition.

Practical Application

Excellent:Student offers three or more recommendations/alternative solutions with a substantiverationale for each.

Very Good:Student offers at least two recommendations/alternative solutions with a substantiverationale for each.

Satisfactory:Student offers recommendation(s)/alternative solutions(s) with limited rationale.

Not Acceptable:Student offers recommendation/alternative solution without a rationale.

Knowledge Base

Excellent:In the discourse, student refers to three or more correct sources, at least two of thesources are research and/or theory.

Very Good:The student refers to two correct sources that are research and/or theory.

Satisfactory:The student refers to one correct source that is research or theory.

Not Acceptable:The student does not refer to a correct source that is research or theory.

44

Writing Skills

Excellent:With a total of two or less errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the studenteffectively communicates his or her analysis.

Very Good:Within a range of 5 to 3 errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the studentadequately communicates his or her analysis.

Satisfactory:Despite 6 or more errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the student communicateshis or her analysis.

Not Acceptable:Due to errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar the student fails to communicate hisor her analysis.

accelerated learning research projectraymondwlodkowski.com/materials/ars.alr.phase5.pdf5. contribute...

Documents