Topical Article

Teaching of Psychology
2015, Vol. 42(1) 26-33
The Effect of Immersion Scheduling on ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Academic Performance and Students’ DOI: 10.1177/0098628314562675
top.sagepub.com
Ratings of Instructors

Aaron S. Richmond1, Bridget C. Murphy1, Layton S. Curl1,

and Kristin A. Broussard1

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

Keywords
immersion learning, student learning, course evaluations

Between 1995 and 1999, a number of researchers and national
committees set to work on efforts to address scheduling and
retention issues in secondary as well as higher education
(Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the
Research University, 1998; Kojaku, Nunez, & Malizio, 1998;
Muraskin, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2001). As a
result, there was a large push for immersion scheduling in both
secondary and higher education (Lawerence & McPherson,
2000). The immersion course is defined as an educational
schedule, in which students experience one course at a time
by engaging in learning activities within extended blocks of
time (Petrowsky, 1996; van Scyoc & Gleason, 1993). However,
with this push came a backlash by many others who claimed
that immersive courses are less effective than traditional for-
mats (e.g., Daniel, 2000; Scott, 2003).
Although immersion scheduling has a history of selective use
in higher education and is becoming increasingly popular in
some universities (Davies, 2006), a review of the literature
revealed a startling absence of rigorous empirical studies addres-
sing academic achievement outcomes, particularly in psychol-
ogy. As studies have demonstrated that immersion scheduling
may increase college retention (e.g., Soldner, Lee, & Duby,
2000), academic self-concept (e.g., Richmond & Krank, 2007),
and critical thinking (Burton & Nesbit, 2008; Jonas, Weimer,
& Herzer, 2004; Mims, 1983; Richmond & Krank, 2007), we
thought it is important to investigate the effects immersion sche-
duling has on the teaching and learning of psychology.
Currently, there have been only two studies that have spe-
cifically investigated the effects of the immersion scheduling
in the psychology classroom. Ray and Kirkpatrick (1983)
investigated the effects on knowledge and anxiety in two
course lengths (15 vs. 3 weeks) for a human sexuality course;
interestingly, they found no academic advantage between the
two course lengths. In contrast, Anastasi (2007) found across
different psychology courses (e.g., memory, research meth-
ods, and effective thinking), students in 2- to 5-week immer-
sion courses sometimes had higher academic performance
compared to students in traditional 16-week courses. Specifi-
cally, Anastasi found that the academic performance in the
summer immersion sections only existed in certain courses
and certain assignments (e.g., exam scores in a critical think-
ing course and research methods course). Unfortunately, this
research was aggregated across different immersion course
formats (e.g., 2, 3, and 5 weeks) and is difficult to assess
which type of immersion course improved academic perfor-
mance. Consequently, we sought to investigate the effect
immersion scheduling had across courses, across levels of
1
Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Aaron S. Richmond, Department of Psychology, Campus Box 54, PO Box
173362, Denver, CO 80217, USA.
Email: arichmo3@msudenver.edu

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015

Richmond et al.
courses (e.g., first year to senior), and within only one type of
immersion format (i.e., 2-week long course with no other
course at the same time).
Beyond student academic performance, student ratings of
instructors (SRIs) are widely used to determine instructor and
course effectiveness (Heckert, Latier, Ringwald, & Silvey,
2006) and can be influenced in part by student engagement
(Handlesman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005), professor–
student rapport (Berglund et al., 2013; Ryan, Wilson, & Pugh,
2011), course size (Heckert et al., 2006), and course objectives
(Gump, 2004). In the immersion literature, Anastasi (2007) is the
only study to investigate the impact immersion scheduling may
have on one aspect of SRIs. Anastasi found that students per-
ceived the rigor of both immersion and traditional course formats
as the same. Unfortunately, Anastasi’s measure of SRIs was a sin-
gle measure, and the reliability and validity were not reported.
Because SRIs may provide an assessment of the intended vari-
ables (i.e., course and instructor effectiveness) as well as identify
possible mediating and moderating variables such as student
engagement, which is important to study within the context of
comparing immersion and traditional scheduling formats, we
investigated the effects of immersion scheduling on SRIs.
Given the limited research in this area, in two separate stud-
ies, we sought to improve this area of research in several ways.
First, in the few studies in psychology (e.g., Anastasi, 2007; Ray
& Kirkpatrick, 1983), there seems to be conflicting evidence of
the efficacy of immersion scheduling, and we sought to clarify
these inconsistencies by initially comparing the two schedule
formats on academic performance (Study 1) and then replicating
this study to check for consistent results (Study 2). Second, in
past studies (Anastasi, 2007; Burton & Nesbit, 2008; Richmond
& Krank, 2007), 2- to 5-week and 3-week immersion courses
were combined. In Studies 1 and 2, we were interested to see
whether academic gains could be made in only a 2-week immer-
sion course. Third, Anastasi reported no difference in perceived
course rigor but did not report additional ratings from SRIs, so
for both Studies 1 and 2, we sought to test whether course format
differentially changed SRIs. Finally, in Study 2, we choose to
replicate the findings of Study 1 on the effects immersion sche-
duling had on academic performance.
Based on our review of literature, for both Studies 1 and 2, we
were interested in assessing these overarching research ques-
tions: (1) Are there academic performance benefits to teaching
in a 2-week immersion course over that of teaching in a tradi-
tional 16-week course? (2) Are instructors viewed more or less
favorably (as measured by SRIs) in a 2-week immersion course
when compared to a traditional 16-week course?
Study 1
Method
Participants
There were 155 undergraduate psychology students who parti-
cipated in this study; 61 students in 2-week immersion courses
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015
27
and 94 students in traditional 16-week courses. Participants
were selected from six sections of three different sophomore-
and junior-level psychology courses (cognitive development
and learning, human development, and social psychology).
Three instructors each taught one specific course in the
2-week immersion format and the same course in the tradi-
tional 16-week format. The sample consisted of 69.7% females.
Although not directly measured, psychology students in our
department typically consist of 1.2% American Indian, 2.7%
Asian or Pacific Islander, 5.3% African American, 13.2% His-
panic, 70.8% White, and 6.1% declaring other.
Both course formats were virtually the same, with the
exception of distribution of course instructional time. Both
course formats required a total of 45 hr of instructional time.
The traditional 16-week course format was delivered twice a
week, for 1 hr and 15 min per meeting for a total of 45 instruc-
tional hours. Traditional 16-week courses were in the fall or
spring traditional semester only. The 2-week immersion
courses met 5 days per week for 4.5 hr per day, for a total of
45 instructional hours, and occurred between the spring and fall
semesters during the university’s winter break. Students were
only allowed to take one course over this time period. Conse-
quently, both course formats were not offered simultaneously.
Additionally, all students select to enroll in either format based
on their own personal needs and are not required to take an
immersion course. In both course formats, students often take
the course for a required major course, minor course, and/or
elective. Because this is a matched-pair design (i.e., each
instructor taught both in the immersion and 16-week format),
each instructor used the same teaching method, covered the
same material, and used the same assessments for both the
2-week immersion and traditional 16-week courses. For
example, both course formats were required to do quizzes,
exams, and writing assignments (e.g., term papers and theory
synthesis papers). Additionally, students in both types of
courses engaged in collaborative writing and presentation
assignments (e.g., a group theory paper and presentation of
how cognitive development applies to K–12 classroom).
Materials and Measures
To assess our research question, each instructor collected
course quizzes and test scores for each of their courses for
research purposes after the course ended. Questions were
multiple-choice, true/false, or fill in the blank. For each instruc-
tor, the test items for the 2-week immersion and traditional 16-
week courses were identical. Averaged over the six courses,
there were 150 questions (range ¼ 55–207). The proportion for
total correct answers of test and quiz questions was computed
for each participant in each course, resulting in one measure
of student academic performance for the course. To assess
SRIs, we used the formal policy and procedures outlined by our
university. Our university’s measure for SRIs loosely follows
the guidelines set forth by Seldin (2006). These were four ques-
tions using a 1 (very poor) to 6 (excellent) response range. The
exact wording of all four questions appears in Table 1.
28
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Inferential Statistics of Course
Evaluations for Study 1.
Two-Week 16-Week
Immersion Traditional
Coursesa Coursesa
Questions Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t (d)
The course as a whole 5.61 (0.55) 4.93 (0.89) 5.61 (0.92) <.001
was:
The course content 5.44 (0.67) 5.02 (0.82) 3.23 (0.56)
was:
The instructor’s 5.82 (0.44) 5.19 (0.90) 4.92 (0.88)
contribution to the
course was:
The instructor’s 5.84 (.045) 5.19 (0.83) 5.49 (0.98)
effectiveness in
teaching the subject
matter was:
Note. aThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N ¼
59) and the 16-week courses (N ¼ 85) on the four student evaluation ques-
tions. The Likert-type scale was anchored on 1 ¼ very poor to 6 ¼ excellent.
Procedures. This study was a post facto assessment of six
psychology courses. As stated previously, each instructor
taught the same course in the 2-week immersion and traditional
16-week course. After each semester ended, each instructor
collected quiz and exam items and computed the percentage
of correct overall for each student.
Results
To examine student performance, we conducted an indepen-
dent t-test between the immersion and 16-week courses.
Results indicate that students in the 2-week immersion
courses (M ¼ 84.33%, SD ¼ 9.53%) performed significantly
higher than students in the traditional 16-week courses
(M ¼ 75.58%, SD ¼ 10.26%), t(153) ¼ 5.33, p <. 001, d ¼
.88. For SRIs, four independent t-tests were conducted. On all
four questions, students in the immersion courses rated their
courses and instructors significantly higher than the tradi-
tional courses (see Table 1 for descriptive data). As indicated
in Table 1, all four t-tests produced large effect sizes.
Brief Discussion
We sought to answer two research questions. First, we were
interested in investigating whether there were academic perfor-
mance benefits to teaching in a 2-week immersion course over
that of teaching in a traditional 16-week course. The results
indicate that there was significantly higher student academic
performance in the immersion courses. As Anastasi (2007) sug-
gests, there may be several explanations for findings such as
ours, in that students in immersion courses may be at an unjust
advantage. Specifically, it may be argued that our results are a
product of course size (i.e., immersion courses were smaller
than the traditional courses). Becker, Sommer, Bee, and Oxley
(1973) suggested that when courses are smaller, there is
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015
Teaching of Psychology 42(1)
increased participation, which may lead to higher academic
performance. However, we contend that students academically
perform almost 10% higher because of reduced interference
effects (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Tulving & Psotka,
1971). Interference occurs either prospectively or retrospec-
p tively and occurs when new learning interferes with the recall
of old learning or when old learning interferes with encoding of
new learning. In the context of Study 1, we suggest that in a
.03 normal 16-week semester, often full-time students take four
to five courses, which creates greater cognitive load, whereas
.011 in our 2-week immersion course, they typically only take one
course. Thus, the amount of cognitive load is reduced, and
there is far less potential for interference of any type.
.002 Second, we assessed whether instructors were viewed more
or less favorably (as measured by SRIs) in a two-week immer-
sion course when compared to a traditional 16-week course.
For all four SRI questions (Table 1), students consistently per-
ceived instructors and the course in the 2-week immersion
course as more positive than the same instructor in the tradi-
tional 16-week course. It is our opinion that students may rate
instructors who teach the 2-week immersion courses higher
because the immediate longer exposure (5–6 hr per day) over
a short period of time (2 weeks) allows for a concentrated
interaction between students and instructors that may increase
student–teacher rapport.
Even though the difference between the two course formats
had a large effect size, Study 1 was not without limitations that
needed to be addressed, as they may restrict the generalization
of results. First, selection effects could be at play in the Study 1
sample (see Beins & McCarthy, 2012; Campbell & Stanley,
1963; Nesselroade & Thompson, 1995). For example, course
size, individual instructor differences, demographic differ-
ences, student collegiate grade point average (GPA), and
higher education experience (e.g., total credits completed at
this level) may impact student learning. Second, in light of the
inconsistent findings in previous studies (e.g., Anastasi, 2007;
Ray & Kirkpatrick, 1983), even though the results of Study 1
begin to establish a pattern indicating immersion courses may
have positive effects on academic performance, we sought to
replicate Study 1’s findings with an even larger sample size
across several different types of psychology courses at several
levels of the psychology curriculum while controlling for indi-
vidual differences. In addition to improving Study 1 based on
the limitations, we decided to add a more in-depth measure
of SRIs with a particular focus on how students compared the
course to other courses they have completed. For example, we
assessed their perceived effort, intellectual challenge, grade
expectations, and course involvement when compared to other
courses and, as such, we were able to gain a deeper insight into
the perceptions of these two course formats.
Based on strengthening Study 1, we sought to answer the
following research questions: (1) After controlling for course
size, overall students’ collegiate GPA, and education experi-
ence (e.g., total credits completed), is there a difference in stu-
dents’ academic performance between 2-week immersion and
traditional 16-week course?
Richmond et al. 29

Table 2. Demographic and Descriptive Data for Study 2. for descriptive data pertaining to the student participants and
courses.
Two-Week 16-Week
Immersion Traditional
Courses Courses Procedure and Measures
Variable (N ¼ 177) (N ¼ 780)
This study was a post facto program assessment of our depart-
Gender ment’s psychology courses taught in both the immersion
Female 138 (78.00%) 540 (69.20%) (2 weeks) and traditional (16 weeks) format. We obtained
Male 39 (22.00%) 240 (30.80%) anonymous data on the variables described subsequently from
Ethnicity
our university’s Office of Institutional Research (OIR). There
African American 8 (4.50%) 23 (2.90%)
American Indian 3 (1.70%) 13 (1.70%) were four main variables (see Table 2 for descriptive demo-
Asian 7 (4.00%) 33 (4.20%) graphic data). First, we requested and received standard
Caucasian 121 (68.40%) 550 (70.50%) demographic data (e.g., gender, ethnicity, and age) from OIR.
Hispanic 23 (130%) 97 (12.40%) Second, to assess academic performance, we received the
International Student 1 (0.60%) 4 (0.50%) final course grades for each student aggregated by format of
Other 14 (7.90%) 60 (7.70%) course length (i.e., 2 vs. 16 weeks). Third, we collected indi-
Course
vidual differences variables to use as covariate measures to
Child psychology 17 (9.6%) 45 (5.9%)
Cognitive development 15 (8.5%) 51 (6.5%) control for possible confounds. Specifically, based on work
and learning by Olani (2009), we collected data on university cumulative
Introductory psychology 5 (2.8%) 52 (6.7%) GPA as a measure of prior academic performance and by proxy
Psychology of human 70 (39.5%) 166 (21.3%) a measure of performance goal motivation. Additionally, Rau
development and Durand (2000) suggest that when students progress in their
Social psychology 66 (37.3%) 461 (59.1%) higher education, they tend to select courses either personally or
Age of student (years) M ¼ 27.80 M ¼ 25.40
academically relevant to them, which is positively related to
SD ¼ 7.00 SD ¼ 6.66
Cumulative GPA M ¼ 3.11, M ¼ 2.79, their GPA. We attempted to control for this selection bias by col-
SD ¼ 0.61 SD ¼ 0.79 lecting data on the total credits that the students completed at our
Academic performance M ¼ 3.26, M ¼ 2.46, institution and using it as a covariate. As class size has been sug-
SD ¼ 0.82 SD ¼ 1.14 gested as a mediator of student learning (Gilmore, Swerdik, &
Total credits completed M ¼ 78.43, M ¼ 52.90, Beehr, 1980), we collected data on the number of students
SD ¼ 30.95 SD ¼ 30.41 enrolled in each course.
Course size M ¼ 20.16, M ¼ 30.55,
Finally, to assess course evaluations and teacher effective-
SD ¼ 6.13 SD ¼ 7.76
ness, we used the university’s SRI form. This form is divided
Note. GPA ¼ grade point average. into two sections. The first section consisted of the same ques-
tions used in Study 1 (see Table 3), which is loosely based on
Selvin (2006). The second section of the form used a 7-point
(2) Is there a difference in students’ perception of teacher Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 ¼ much lower to 7 ¼ much
effectiveness, student involvement in the course, and students’ higher to assess students’ perception of expected course
course ratings between 2-week immersion and traditional grade, the amount of effort put into the course, the amount
16-week courses? of effort to succeed in the course, and the student’s involve-
ment in the course (e.g., doing assignments and attending
class) when compared to other courses. Refer to Table 3 for
Study 2 a complete list of the questions and descriptive data.
Method
Participants Results
From the fall semester of 2006 to the spring semester of To examine academic performance differences between the
2010, 957 undergraduate student participants enrolled in 12 two course types, while controlling for the effect of cumula-
sections of five different lower and upper division courses tive GPA, course size, and total credits completed at the uni-
of psychology. Six instructors each taught one course in the versity, we first ran three independent samples t-tests1 on
2-week immersion format and the same course in the 16- each of the three covariates. Results indicate significant dif-
week traditional format. Both course formats required the ferences for all three covariates (i.e., course size, cumulative
same amount of instructional time (45 hr) and covered the GPA, and total credits completed); specifically, students in
same material. As was the case in Study 1, both course for- the 2-week immersion courses had significantly higher
mats were identical in course structure (e.g., writing assign- academic performance over that of traditional 16-week
ments, tests, quizzes, collaborative projects, instructional course students, t(927) ¼ 4.86 p < .001, d ¼ 0.44; signifi-
time, etc.) with the exception of course length. See Table 2 cantly smaller course size than traditional 16-week courses,

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015

30 Teaching of Psychology 42(1)

Table 3. Descriptive Data for SRIs for Study 2.

2-Week Immersion 16-Week Traditional

Courses Courses
M (SD) M (SD)

Instructor effectiveness and course ratings questions

a
The course as a whole was: 5.46 (0.69) 5.19 (0.83)
a
The course content was: 5.35 (0.69) 5.17 (0.78)
a
The instructor’s contribution to the course was: 5.67 (0.61) 5.44 (0.78)
a
The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was: 5.62 (0.66) 5.35 (0.81)
Comparative Course Questions
b
Compared to other courses you have taken, do you expect your grade in this course to be 5.34 (1.22) 4.93 (1.06)
(higher/lower):
b
Compared to other courses you have taken, the intellectual challenge presented was (higher/ 5.62 (0.98) 5.41 (0.94)
lower):
b
Compared to other courses you have taken, the amount of effort you put into this course was 5.68 (1.17) 5.13 (1.08)
(higher/lower):
b
Compared to other courses you have taken, your involvement in this course (doing 5.96 (1.18) 5.39 (1.08)
assignments, attending class, etc.) was (higher/lower):
Note. SRIs ¼ student ratings of instructors. aThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N ¼109) and the 16-week courses (N ¼478) on
the four student evaluation questions. bThere were different sample sizes for both the immersion courses (N ¼ 74) and the 16-week courses (N ¼ 204) on the
four-student evaluation questions. The Likert-type scale was anchored on 1 ¼ very poor to 6 ¼ excellent.

t(927) ¼ 16.46, p < .001, d ¼ 1.49; and significantly more total
credits completed than traditional 16-week course students,
t(927) ¼ 9.76, p <.001, d ¼ 0.83.
To control for individual differences between students in
the 2-week immersion course and the traditional 16-week
course, we conducted an analysis of covariance on student
academic performance, and results indicated a significant
main effect of the between-factor course type, F(1, 898) ¼
41.53 p < .001, Zp2 ¼ .044, after covariates were considered.
Even after adjusting for the covariates, students in the 2-week
immersion courses had significantly higher academic per-
formance than students in the traditional 16-week courses,
F(4, 898) ¼ 299.76, p <. 001, Zp2 ¼ .57. The covariate of
cumulative GPA and total credits completed significantly
influenced the dependent variable of academic performance,
F(1, 898) ¼ 903.79 and 7.87, p <. 001, Zp2 ¼ .50 and .01,
respectively. However, the covariate of course size did not
influence academic performance, F(1, 898) ¼ .34, p >.05,
Zp2 < .001.
Two one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANO-
VAs) were conducted to examine the effect of scheduling type
on students’ perceptions of (1) teacher effectiveness and
course content; and (2) students’ perceptions of effort and
involvement in the course, for a sample of 587 students. For
the first MANOVA, the dependent variables included the stu-
dents’ rating of the course as a whole, the course content, the
instructor’s contribution to the course, and the instructor’s
effectiveness in teaching the subject matter. This gave us a
total of four dependent variables. The results of the MAN-
OVA show an overall significant difference between 2-week
immersion courses and traditional 16-week courses in instruc-
tor evaluations, Wilks’ l ¼ F(4, 582) ¼ 3.24, p ¼ .012. Spe-
cifically, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that
students in the 2-week immersion courses significantly rated
the courses higher than students in the traditional 16-week
course on ratings of the course as a whole, F(1, 585) ¼
10.10, p ¼ .002, Zp2 ¼ .02, ratings of course content F(1,
585) ¼ 4.85, p ¼ .028, Zp2 ¼ .01, ratings of the instructor’s
contribution of the course, F(1, 585) ¼ 8.00, p¼ .005, Zp2
¼ .01, and ratings of instructor effectiveness in teaching the
subject matter, F(1, 585) ¼ 10.75, p ¼ .001, Zp2 ¼ .02. See
Table 3 for descriptive data.
To examine whether scheduling type had an effect on
evaluations of the course in comparison to other courses the
student had taken, a one-way MANOVA was conducted.
Specifically, questions on the student rating form included
the amount of effort put into the course relative to other
courses; do you expect your grade to be (higher than/lower
than other courses); the intellectual challenge presented was
(higher/lower than other courses); and the effort to succeed in
the course was (higher/lower than other courses). A one-way
MANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of 2-week
immersion versus traditional 16-week courses on students’
course evaluations for a sample of 2782 students. The results
of the MANOVA show an overall significant difference
between scheduling type in instructor evaluations, Wilks’
l ¼ F(5, 272) ¼ 3.79, p ¼ .002. The results of the ANOVA
indicate that students in the 2-week immersion courses
expected higher grades, F(1, 276) ¼ 7.58, p ¼.006, Zp2 ¼
.03, perceived a greater amount of effort put into the course
compared to other courses, F(1, 276) ¼ 13.96, p < .001, Zp2 ¼
.05, and the effort required to succeed in the course was
greater compared to other courses, F(1, 276) ¼ 13.18, p ¼
.012, Zp2 ¼ .02, over that of students in traditional 16-week
course. However, there was not a significant difference between
the two course formats in the intellectual challenge of the
course, F(1, 276) ¼ 2.39, p ¼ .10, Zp2 ¼ .01. See Table 3 for
descriptive data.

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015

Richmond et al. 31

Brief Discussion overall course ratings. Furthermore, since students are only
enrolled in one course during immersion scheduling, most
To assess our research question centered on the effects immer-
of their time and effort is devoted to this single course, which
sion scheduling has on academic performance, the data suggest
may make their involvement in the course more salient when
that after controlling for selection effects (i.e., Nesselroade &
completing the student evaluations of course and instructor.
Thompson, 1995) of cumulative GPA and total credits com-
pleted, students in immersion courses can perform just as well
or better than students in standard length courses. Again, coun- General Discussion and Conclusions
ter to Ray and Kirkpatrick (1983) and in support of Anastasi
Throughout both studies, we consistently found students in the
(2007), we found consistent results across various psychology
immersion format significantly academically outperformed their
courses supporting the use of immersion courses. As in Study 1,
16-week cohort who received instruction from that same
students may perform better in immersion courses primarily
instructor with the same course content. As we have argued,
because of the lack of interference effects as previously dis-
the immersion instructional format may be beneficial because
cussed (see Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; Tulving & Psotka,
there are fewer competing cognitive demands, and we suggest
1971). That is, in a normal semester, often full-time students
that, when possible, psychology departments may want to
take four to five courses, whereas in our 2-week immersion
consider incorporating this instructional format more often.
course, they can take only one course. Thus, there is far less
We also argue that when students academically perform
potential for interference and competing cognitive demand.
higher in the immersion format, it may be due to developing
SRIs were utilized as a measure of course and instructor
a quicker and more established rapport with their instructors,
effectiveness per the suggestion of Heckert, Latier, Ringwald,
which has demonstrated to increase academic performance
and Silvey (2006). A large body of research has shown several
(Wilson et al., 2010). Tentatively, based on our findings, psy-
factors may mediate or moderate the ratings students give of
chology departments may consider using more immersion
teachers and courses, such as engagement, student–teacher
courses to increase student academic performance.
rapport, course size, and course objectives (Berglund et al.,
Additionally, throughout both studies, we consistently
2013; Gump, 2004; Handlesman et al., 2005; Heckert et al.,
observed that students in the 2-week immersion course pro-
2006). Inconsistent with Anastasi’s (2007) finding of no dif-
duced higher SRIs over that of the traditional 16-week
ference in 1 SRI item (i.e., course rigor) between the two
course. Because of course length and time spent per day
course types, we found that students in the 2-week immersion
in class—everyday—we contend that students and instruc-
courses rated the course and instructor more highly than stu-
tors develop a heightened rapport. And as student–instructor
dents in the traditional 16-week courses even with the same
rapport is purported as significantly contributing to student
instructor. Specifically, students in the 2-week immersion
evaluations of instructor and course, the immersion format,
courses rated their instructors as more effective and as contri-
when applicable, may be more beneficial to developing stu-
buting more to the course than students in traditional 16-week
dent–instructor rapport.
courses. These students also rated the course as better, and
There are several instructional implications to our findings.
in comparison to other courses. In the 2-week immersion
First, our results counterclaims that immersion courses provide
courses, students expected a higher grade, put in more effort
only ‘‘superficial’’ coverage of material and cannot provide the
to succeed, and felt that more of the time per week they spent
same content as traditional courses due to the reduced time
on the course was valuable to their education. However, stu-
period in which the course takes place (Wlodkowski, 2003).
dents did indicate that the 2-week immersion course was no
Second, if—as a psychology instructor—the course objective
different than a 16-week course in intellectual demand. This
is to promote students’ basic knowledge and comprehension
last point is important to note because it provides some evi-
of course material and to have students think critically about
dence that the courses were equivalent.
course material, which Ormrod (2006) and Shell and Kleen
Overall, we contend that students may rate the 2-week
(1992) suggest is critical in higher education, then it seems that
immersion course and instructors more highly than students
immersion course may be an important modality of teaching.
in the traditional 16-week course because the condensed for-
Finally, our Study 2 findings replicate the results of Study 1,
mat allows for a large amount of interaction between students
implying that immersion courses are a practical option for both
and instructors in a very short time span (2 weeks), which may
college administrators and students who may face obstacles
bolster student–teacher rapport. Berglund et al. (2013) found
such as decreased resources and course scheduling.
the rapport between teachers and their students was the stron-
Alongside the educational implications of Studies 1 and 2,
gest predictor of teacher effectiveness ratings on SRIs, such
there are a few limitations. First, we did not study long-term
that teachers were perceived to be more effective when they
retention (e.g., 6-month delay) of academic performance. Some
had better rapport with their students (see Benson, Cohen,
may argue that retention rates are lower in immersion courses;
& Buskist, 2005; Wilson, Ryan, & Pugh, 2010 for further
however, Seamon (2004) suggests that most researchers do not
examples). Our results indicate that immersion courses may
track performance over time, regardless of course format, due
promote, expedite, and -solidify student–teacher rapport, thus
to the difficulties associated with this process. If possible,
improving students’ perception of teacher effectiveness and
future researchers would do well to investigate the long-term

Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015

32
effects on academic performance of immersion courses. Second,
both studies lacked a randomized double-blind control design.
However, we attempted to diminish this limitation by controlling
for teacher characteristics, using a matched-instructor design,
and an extremely large sample size (i.e., Study 2). Finally, in
accordance with Dunn’s (2008) argument for vigor over rigor,
we present an ecologically valid study that may be helpful to
psychology instructors. Specifically, Dunn argues that random
assignment is not always ethical or practical in classroom
research. Also, Dunn argues that again the ethical implication
of having a true control group is problematic.
As Davies (2006) states,
Advantages of intensive formats [immersion] can be both ped-
agogical and logistical. They can accrue to both student and
instructor. They revolve around increased motivation, commit-
ment, and concentration, diversity of teaching methods, stimu-
lation and enthusiasm, stronger relations among students, and
flexibility. (p. 19)
We suggest that, in addition, the immersion course may pro-
vide the benefit of increasing students’ academic performance.
Although not always practical for every psychology depart-
ment, this type of course infused with the traditional course
may best enhance student performance.
Authors’ Note
The results of Study 1 were presented at the 2010 annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association, San Diego, CA, USA. The
results of Study 2 were presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C, USA.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Twenty-eight students were removed from the analyses because
they either received an ‘‘Incomplete’’ in the course or a ‘‘No
Credit.’’
2. This sample is smaller than the sample used for main analysis of
scheduling effects on academic performance (e.g., N ¼ 586)
because student instructor and course data were optional for stu-
dents to complete.
References
Anastasi, J. S. (2007). Full-semester and abbreviated summer courses:
An evaluation of student performance. Teaching of Psychology,
34, 19–22. doi:10.1080/00986280709336643
Becker, F. D., Sommer, R., Bee, J., & Oxley, B. (1973). College
classroom ecology. Sociometry, 36, 230–231.
Beins, B. C., & McCarthy, M. A. (2012). Research methods and
statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015
Teaching of Psychology 42(1)
Benson, T. A., Cohen, A. L., & Buskist, W. (2005). Rapport: Its rela-
tion to student attitudes and behaviors toward teachers and
classes. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 237–270. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top3204_8
Berglund, M., Richmond, A. S., Epelbaum, V. B., Oakman, S. D.,
Pullano, K., Klein, E. M., . . . Pisel, A. L. (2013, April). Influence
of humor, student rapport, and engagement on teaching effective-
ness . . . no joke! Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the
Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Denver, CO.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research
University. (1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blue-
print for America’s Research Universities. Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ.
Burton, S., & Nesbit, P. L. (2008). Block or traditional? An analysis of
student choice of teaching format. Journal of Management and
Organization, 14, 4–19. doi:10.5172/jmo.2008.14.1.4
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Dalai, N. P. (1994). Higher order thinking in MIS. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 34, 26–30.
Daniel, E. L. (2000). A review of time-shortened courses across disci-
plines. College Student Journal, 34, 298–308.
Davies, W. M. (2006). Intensive teaching formats: A review. Issues in
Educational Research, 16, 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.iier.
org.au/iier16/davies.html
Dunn, D. (2008). Another view: In defense of vigor over rigor in class-
room demonstrations. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 349–352. doi:
10.1080/00986280802374039
Gilmore, D., Swerdik, M. E., & Beehr, T. A. (1980). Effects of
class size and college major on student ratings of psychology
courses. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 210–214. doi:10.1207/
s15328023top0704_3
Gump, S. E. (2004). Daily class objectives and instructor’s effec-
tiveness as perceived by students’. Psychological Reports, 94,
1250–1252.
Handlesman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005).
A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 98, 184–191. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald, A., & Silvey, B. (2006). Relation
of course, instructor, and student characteristics to dimensions of
student ratings and teaching effectiveness. College Student Jour-
nal, 40, 195–203.
Jonas, P. M., Weimer, D., & Herzer, K. (2004). Comparison of tradi-
tional and nontraditional undergraduate business degree pro-
grams—Adult education. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
28, 161–168.
Kojaku, L. K., Nunez, A. M., & Malizio, A. G. (1998). Descriptive
summary of 1995–1996 beginning postsecondary students with
profiles of students entering 2- and 4- year institutions U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, DC. (NCES 1999-030)
Lawerence, W. W., & McPherson, D. D. (2000). A comparative study
of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic
achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 178–182.
Mims, S. K. (1983). The impact of time on art learning: Intensive vs.
concurrent scheduling in higher education. Studies in Art Educa-
tion, 24, 118–125.
Richmond et al.
Muraskin, L. D. (1998). A structured freshman year for at-risk
students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Nesselroade, J. R., & Thompson, W. W. (1995). Selection and
related threats to group comparisons: An example comparing fac-
torial structures of higher and lower ability groups of adult twins.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 271–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
117.2.271
Olani, A. (2009). Predicting first year university students’ academic
success. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychol-
ogy, 7, 1696–2095. Retrieved from http://www.investigacion-psi-
copedagogica.com/revista/articulos/19/english/Art_19_376.pdf
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners
(5th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Petrowsky, M. C. (1996). The two-week summer microeconomics
course: Success or failure? (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice, ED 396779). Glendale Community College, Glendale, AZ.
Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college
grades: Does hard work help students to ‘‘make the grade’’?
Sociology of Education, 73, 19–38. doi:147.153.177.2
Ray, R., & Kirkpatrick, D. (1983). Two time formats to teaching
human sexuality. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 84–88. doi:10.
1207/s15328023top1002_6
Richmond, A. S., & Krank, H. M. (April, 2007). Immersion schedul-
ing, academic self-concept, and college student success. Paper
presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association;
Denver, CO.
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing
memory: Basic research and implications for educational prac-
tice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Ryan, R. G., Wilson, J. H., & Pugh, J. L. (2011). Psychometric char-
acteristics of the professor–student rapport scale. Teaching of
Psychology, 38, 135–141. doi:10.1177/0098628311411894
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com by guest on March 22, 2015
33
Scott, P. A. (2003). Attributes of high-quality intensive courses. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 97, 29–38. doi:10.
1002/ace.86
Seamon, M. (2004). Short-and long-term differences in instructional
effectiveness between intensive and semester-length courses.
Teachers College Record, 106, 852–874.
Seldin, P. (2006). Evaluating faculty performance: A practical guide
to assessing teaching, research, and service. Bolton, MA: Anker
Publishing Company.
Shell, W. L., & Kleen, B. A. (1992). Innovative pedagogies for out-
comes based teaching in the core MIS course. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 33, 3–7.
Soldner, L., Lee, Y., & Duby, P. (2000). Welcome to the block:
Development freshman learning communities that work. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 1,
115–129. doi:10.2190/QL13-7QWA-VDXF-PJHL
Tulving, E., & Psotka, J. (1971). Retroactive inhibition in free recall:
Inaccessibility of information available in memory store. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 87, 1–8. doi:10.1037/h0030185
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The condition of education
2001 (NCES 1999-030). U.S. Department of Education, Washing-
ton, DC.
van Scyoc, L., & Gleason, J. (1993). Traditional or intensive
course lengths? A comparison of outcomes in economics learn-
ing. Journal of Economics Education, 24, 15–22.
Wilson, J. H., Ryan, R. G., & Pugh, J. L. (2010). Professor-student
rapport scale predicts student outcomes. Teaching of Psychology,
37, 246–251. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.510976
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Accelerated learning in colleges and
universities. In R. J. Wlodkowskii & C. Kasworm (Eds.), Accel-
erated learning for adults: The promise and practice of inten-
sive educational formats (Vol. 97, pp. 5–15). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.