Purpose. This report reviews research about the benefits and drawbacks of “intensive” teaching and learning. Does raising standards and demanding more effort from students have meaningful benefits and/or serious consequences? What kinds of changes at the student, course, and curriculum levels lead to higher standards and increased effort? Several universities are experimenting with what is sometimes referred to as “block mode teaching” (BMT) or “intensive mode delivery” (IMD) where students focus on fewer topics at a time for shorter periods. These explorations, including at Duke Kunshan University, are motivated by theoretical, practical, and empirical findings suggesting that intensive teaching can a) improve learning, b) close inequity gaps, c) offer greater scheduling flexibility, and d) better fulfill the educational needs of non-traditional groups (e.g. first-in-family and lifelong learning). Scholars also argue moving to a block mode teaching can help address concerns around e) decreasing standards across many disciplines (“when I did my undergraduate degree, requirements were more challenging”) and f) students spending less time studying (see above). Conversely, others argue that intensive teaching can g) have negative effects on mental health, h) limit deep engagement and reflection, i) promote group assessment (raising concerns about free riding), and/or j) cause overload (workload or cognitive load).

Findings. Despite growing interest and optimism, the study of intensity in teaching and learning is still limited. In a special issue on intensive teaching and learning published in 2024, the literature on BMT was described as “immature and evolving.”⁷ Mitchell and Brodmerkel in a review of research on “highly intensive teaching” in higher education said that “despite the increasing popularity of this form of delivery, rigorous and methodologically robust research into the benefits and challenges of this form of pedagogy is still in its infancy.”⁸ One reason is that relatively few institutions use BMT, IMD, and/or emphasize intensive teaching. Another is that many BMT/IMD courses and programs attract a different student body, making comparisons difficult. Implementation of intensive teaching also often coincides with other pedagogical development. As a result, evaluating whether effects are due to intensity or pedagogy can be difficult. Finally, very few studies include a broad range of reliable and valid measures of learning outcomes (e.g. authentic assessment).

The current evidence suggests that intensive learning can improve academic performance, advance equity, reduce failing rates, enhance satisfaction, improve stress management and increase positive stress (eustress), and strengthen study habits. However, research also reports that increased rigor can lead to cognitive overload, superficial learning, increased stress, less satisfaction, and burnout. Other studies reveal minimal differences across modes of teaching. On balance, more studies report benefits of intensive learning compared to drawbacks. Taken together, the results suggest that the effects of intensive learning are moderated by students’ motivation and learning skills, how well course activities are linked to learning outcomes, and whether said outcomes are scaffolded across courses in the curriculum. Thus, increasing intensity should be accompanied by metacognitive training, pedagogical redesign promoting deep learning and higher-level skill training, curricular scaffolding, and mental health monitoring and support.