On the negative side, however, there has been some resistance to and criticism of
intensive programs. Carrington (2010) discusses the issue from the psychological dimension. He
mentions that psychological research as well as educational psychology, suggests that learning
is enhanced when new subjects are presented in spaced out sessions rather than compressed
into fewer, longer sessions. This would suggest that students learn better when taking courses
that are scheduled over longer time periods.
Contrary to the success stories of academic
achievement under block scheduling is Bateson’s study (1990) in which students in traditional
schools scored significantly higher than those attending compressed classes. Hnbery (1997)
also believes that students have to move on to new material without having time to review or
reread old material. Some students have complained that intensive courses are more stressful
(Daniel, 2000) with too much work and material (Scott & Conrad,1991). Faculty views of
intensive courses indicate that they are critical of the fatigue, lack of time for the students to
European Scientific Journal April edition vol. 8, No.8 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
131
digest concepts, lack of opportunities to cover extensive coverage, and too rapid assignments
(Scott & Conrad,1991).
There have been some mixed views about the effectiveness of intensive courses as
well. In other words, they do not believe in either intensive or non-intensive with nothing in
between. To Carrington (2010), there are some courses which are not well suited for
compressed or intensive scheduling. These courses include those which are part of a sequence
and therefore require the students to make use of prior knowledge as well as courses which
need more analysis than memorization. Investigating the impact of course scheduling on
student success in accounting, Carrington (2010)