Block delivery models in higher education: a rapid evidence synthesis to inform practice

Purpose This paper aims to synthesise evidence on block delivery, in which students study one module intensively at a time, and identify implications for institutional, work-based and employer-linked provision. Design/methodology/approach A rapid evidence synthesis searched seven EBSCO Information Services databases and Google Scholar on 17 December 2025. One researcher screened 722 records, included 22 sources, applied the Harbour–Miller evidence hierarchy and conducted a narrative thematic synthesis. Findings Block delivery was associated with focus, engagement and sometimes attainment, but the evidence was predominantly non-analytic or methodologically limited. Compression was rarely introduced alone: curriculum, active teaching, assessment and student support were redesigned concurrently. Reported gains therefore cannot be attributed to compression alone. Risks included reduced spacing, vulnerability to absence and concentrated staff workload. Research limitations/implications Single-reviewer methods, a restrictive search and predominantly Australian evidence limit causal and international inference. Research should isolate reform components and examine durable learning, retention, equity and staff well-being. Practical implications Institutions should treat block delivery as a pedagogical and organisational reform, not a timetable change. Adoption requires curriculum and assessment alignment, staff development and rapid support after absence. Social implications Block delivery may reduce competing demands for some students, but compressed attendance may disadvantage employed students, carers and others unable to recover quickly from absence. Originality/value This graded, decision-focused synthesis distinguishes timetable compression from the wider redesign accompanying it and extends the implications to work-based and employer-linked provision.