Some believe that the longer the face to face classroom meeting time, the more effective the learning experience. Others point out disadvantages of lengthier classes (e.g., student attention problems). The authors assess which of three class formats (i.e., 1 hour/three times a week, 1½ hours/twice a week, or 3 hours/one time a week) is optimal in terms of student (a) perspectives, (b) grades, and (c) evaluations of instructor performance. The authors observed that regardless of major, students prefer the twice a week class format, and marketing majors had the strongest preference for that format. All students believed the once a week format would result in lower levels of learning. Instructors teaching in the twice a week format received higher evaluations from students. And finally, there appears to be slightly better student grade performance in shorter classes, especially evident with marketing majors attending the twice a week format.
Addison, W., Best, J., & Warrington, J. (2006). Students' perceptions of course difficulty and their ratings of the instructor. College Student Journal, 40, 409-416.
2.
Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education , 13, 153-169.
3.
Brookfield, S.D. (2003). A critical theory perspective on accelerated learning . New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 97, 73-82.
4.
Caskey, S.R. (1994). Learning outcomes in intensive courses. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 42(2), 23-27.
5.
Chambers, B.A., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Inequity in the performance evaluation process: How you rate me affects how I rate you. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16, 103-112.
6.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2004). Marketing students' perceptions of teaching evaluations: An application of expectancy theory. Marketing Education Review , 14(2), 23-36.
7.
Clayson, D.E., & Haley, D.A. (1990). Student evaluations in marketing: What is actually being measured? Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 9-17.
8.
Daniel, E.L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disciplines . College Student Journal, 34, 298-309.
9.
Davidovitch, N., & Soen, D. (2006). Class attendance and students' evaluation of their college instructors. College Student Journal, 40, 691-703.
10.
Di, X. (1996). Teaching real world students: A study of the relationship between students' academic achievement and daily-life interfering and remedial factors. College Student Journal, 30, 238-254.
11.
Ewer, S., Greer, O., Bridges, W., & Lewis, B. (2002). Class length and student performance: An extended study. International Advances in Economic Research, 8, 160-168.
12.
Fredrick, W.C., & Walberg, H. (1980). Learning as a function of time. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 183-194.
13.
Grimes, P., & Niss, J. (1989). Concentrated study time and improved learning efficiency: An experiment using Economics U$A. Research in Economic Education, 20, 133-139.
14.
Henebry, K. (1997). The impact of class schedule on student performance in a financial management course. Journal of Education for Business, 73, 114-120.
15.
Karns, G.L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 163-171.
16.
Koushki, P.A., & Kuhn, H.A.J. (1982). How reliable are student evaluations of teachers ? Engineering Education, 72, 362-367.
17.
Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1974). Student ratings of instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1, 51-57.
18.
LaBarbera, P.A., & Simonoff, J.S. (1999). Toward enhancing the quality and quantity of marketing majors. Journal of Marketing Education , 21(1), 4-13.
19.
March, H.W. (1987). Students' evaluation of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.
20.
March, H.W., & Dunkin, M.J. (1992). Students' evaluations of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 8, 143-233.
21.
March, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1997). Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197.
22.
Mitchell, A.A., & Olson, J.C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318-332.
Petrowsky, M.C. (1996). The two week summer macroeconomics course: Success or failure? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396779). Glendale, AZ: Glendale Community College.
25.
Rayburn, L.G., & Rayburn, J.M. (1999). Impact of course length and homework assignments on student performance. Journal of Education for Business , 74, 325-331.
26.
Scott, P.A., & Conrad, C.F. (1991). A critique of intensive courses and an agenda for research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research , 8, 411-459.
27.
Smith, J.P. (1988). Effects of intensive college sources on student cognitive achievement, academic standards, student attitudes, and faculty attitudes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 746.
28.
Tracey, T.J., Sedlacek, W.E., & Patterson, A.M. (1980). Perceptions of summer school faculty at a large university. Southern College Personnel Association Journal, 4(2), 39-46.
29.
Ulrich, T.A. (2005). The relationship of business major to pedagogical strategies. Journal of Education for Business, 80, 269-274.
30.
Van Scyoc, L., & Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or intensive course lengths? A comparison of outcomes in economics learning. Journal of Economic Education , 24(1), 15-22.
31.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York : John Wiley.
32.
Wachtel, H.K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 23, 191-211.
33.
West, J., Newell, S., & Titus, P. (2001). Comparing marketing and non-business students' choice of academic field of study. Marketing Education Review , 11(2), 76-82.
