Improving grades, saving money

Jan 13, 2011

In their paper, ‘Exploring the impacts of accelerated delivery on student learning, achievement and satisfaction’, published in Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Stephen Wilkins, from the International Center of Higher Education Management, Dr. Susan Martin, from the Department of Education, along with Dr. Ian Walker, from the Department of Psychology, suggest that many high ability students could cope successfully on accelerated A-level programmes, particularly in ‘softer’ subjects such as Business Studies.

The study looked at the performance of 879 over four years who had taken accelerated and non-accelerated programs in A-level Business Studies. It was found that students taking the one-year accelerated programme would achieve a higher grade than those on the non-accelerated program if they satisfied at least one of three conditions.

These were:

• They had previously studied the subject, (i.e., they had taken GCSE Business Studies),
• they had achieved an A or A grade in GCSE English,
• or if they had achieved an A* or A grade in GCSE Maths.

The researchers also found that the one-year A-level course could save money for schools.

Stephen Wilkins said: “We found that students on accelerated programs had higher attendance levels and they also completed more assessed homework. The style of learning on accelerated programs is more geared to exam performance, and this suits many students. Students realise that they are under pressure and they respond by working harder.”

Allowing high ability students to take A-levels in one year instead of two, could allow some students to start higher a year earlier or to take extra AS or A-level subjects.

Also, the reduced student-teacher contact hours can provide cost savings for schools and more efficient use of physical resources.

Stephen Wilkins added: “Our study had a relatively small sample and examined only one subject – Business Studies – so clearly further research is needed before schools introduce more accelerated programs.”

Explore further: Understanding the economics of human trafficking

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Drug testing in schools up

Jul 12, 2006

Higher funding and the lowering of legal constraints are encouraging more U.S. schools to test students for use of illegal drugs.

Recommended for you

Understanding the economics of human trafficking

23 hours ago

Although Europe is one of the strictest regions in the world when it comes to guaranteeing the respect of human rights, the number of people trafficked to or within the EU still amounts to several hundred ...

Affirmative action elicits bias in pro-equality Caucasians

Jul 25, 2014

New research from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business indicates that bias towards the effects of affirmative action exists in not only people opposed to it, but also in those who strongly endorse equality.

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

Jul 24, 2014

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

geokstr
1 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2011
So, students who are more motivated, better prepared, showed up for class more often, completed more homework, and studied harder did better.

Well, duh-uh.

I certainly am glad my earmark money is going to study such difficult concepts that go against common sense like this one, and not being wasted on other inane stuff.
Skylark
5 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2011
But what is interesting is that students were more motivated, better prepared, showed up for class more often, completed more homework and studied harder after they had their teaching time halved.

I'm sure the government would love this idea. Deliver all A levels in one year and all undergraduate degrees in two years - that will help reduce the budget deficit!