Introduction

Over the past five decades, there has been a large increase in the number of students undertaking higher education (HE) studies globally. Many countries have implemented policies and initiatives to not only increase HE participation but to make their institutions accessible to a broader range of students (Younger et al., 2019). As a result of which, there are now larger proportions of non-traditional domestic students participating in HE in countries such as Australia (Li & Jackson, 2023), the United States of America (USA; Younger et al., 2019), South Africa (Pitsoe & Letseka, 2018), the United Kingdom (UK; Evans et al., 2021) and elsewhere in Europe (Weedon & Riddell, 2016). These new non-traditional cohorts often include mature-aged students looking for a career change or upskilling, people with caring duties or family commitments and part-time students seeking formal qualifications (Naidu, 2018; Stone, 2022). Such high-participation HE systems, while laudably diverse in their student bodies, are often characterised by disparate outcomes for different student cohorts (Ashwin, 2022; Marginson, 2016).

In these environments, the need to better meet the learning needs of heterogeneous student populations has become a prominent driver for curriculum reform. Curriculum encompasses purposeful approaches to pedagogy, content and assessment (Woelert et al., 2022) and is widely understood as fundamental to the success of diverse students in contemporary HE (Honkimäki et al., 2022; Kahu & Nelson, 2018; Kift, 2015). Curriculum reform may be driven by a complex array of global and local trends and priorities (Shay, 2016), including employability (Roberts, 2015), market competitiveness (Woelert et al., 2022), technological evolution (Crawford & Jenkins, 2017) and, given its relationship to student success, also to improve outcomes for diverse student cohorts (Roche et al., 2023). Post-pandemic, many such students are also expressing preferences for learning experiences that are more flexible, enabling them to study successfully around competing commitments such as work and family (Fishman et al., 2022; Kelly, 2021; Quacquarelli Symonds, 2021). The issue of how to reform curricula to better meet students’ needs and preferences while creating the conditions for academic success has emerged as a key challenge facing many HE institutions across the globe.

This study provides insight into how one Australian university with high proportions of students from non-traditional backgrounds such as mature-aged and first-in-family status used curriculum reform with the aim of raising intractably poor rates of student success and retention (Roche et al., 2022). While discipline, course or unit-specific curriculum change has long been a focal point in the HE literature, investigations of complex change across whole institutions are less common (Anakin et al., 2018; Tight, 2023). The curriculum transformation explored in this paper is an example of radical reform, diverging from the “dominant and well-entrenched template” (Woelert et al., 2022, p. 1) of offering university learning through 12–15-week semesters, lectures and examinations. Instead, the transformations undertaken at the study site merged two more novel approaches in HE scheduling and pedagogy: immersive blocks and active learning.

Immersive block models are a non-traditional form of HE delivery that aim to enable greater levels of focus and in turn better support the academic success of diverse HE cohorts (Goode et al., 2023; Roche et al., 2023; Turner et al., 2021). Variously termed “block”, “intensive”, “accelerated” (Davies, 2006) and more recently “immersive” modelsFootnote 1 (Goode et al., 2023; Roche et al., 2024; Turner et al., 2021), these new ways of scheduling typically offer shorter teaching periods of 4–6 weeks with a full-time load of 1–2 units at a time (Samarawickrema et al., 2022). The most common form of immersive block learning—often simply termed “block”—enrols students in one subject at a time over teaching periods of approximately 4 weeks (Konjarski et al., 2023). Although not widespread, this approach to scheduling has been recently introduced in universities in Australia (Loton et al., 2022) and the UK (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022) and earlier in North America where a block model was implemented at Colorado College in 1970 (Konjarski et al., 2023). The immersive block model examined in this paper differs from these one-unit-at-a-time models by allowing full-time students to study two units over 6-week teaching terms. This approach enables a level of flexibility in study load not possible in one-at-a-time block models, through maintaining a part-time study option while still focusing students’ cognitive efforts on fewer concurrent subjects and assessments than the traditional semester model.

In addition to changes in scheduling, immersive block models often involve deep reflection and revitalisation of an institution’s pedagogical approach (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Konjarski et al., 2023; McCluskey et al., 2019; Roche et al., 2024). At the host university, the changes to scheduling were accompanied by a shift in pedagogy towards active learning approaches, driven by policy renewal and the development of institution-wide principles for guided and active learning (Roche et al., 2024). Active and experiential learning opportunities are championed in much of the literature on pedagogy. Engaged learning, drawing on the theoretical framing provided by Dewey (1938) and Kolb (1984), has long been viewed as a powerful foundation upon which students may build knowledge and skills in elementary and secondary education (Lund Dean & Wright, 2017), with similar approaches being considered later in higher education (HE) (Kietlinska, 1972). Increasingly universities have encouraged, and in some cases required, that faculty use active teaching methods to enhance engagement and success (Lund Dean & Wright, 2017).

Despite recent growth in the literature on immersive block models in HE (e.g. Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Konjarski et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2021), such models are often not well understood outside of the institutions where they have been trialled and implemented. This study draws on data from across a comprehensive Australian HE institution that has introduced an immersive block model underpinned by a pedagogy of active learning across all disciplines except health and law; only a few courses had transitioned in health, and none in law, at the time of data collection. Whole-of-institution curriculum reforms are best considered “long-term dynamic endeavors” (Tassone et al., 2022, p. 2467) that require analysis over time to establish whether they present viable alternatives to traditional models (Bajada et al., 2019; Loton et al., 2022). This study therefore provides an early view of outcomes resulting from this large-scale curriculum reform crossing multiple disciplines, year levels and study modes. The study addresses the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    How has an immersive block model underpinned by active learning pedagogy affected the academic success of domestic undergraduate students, including cohorts according to attendance mode (external/internal),Footnote 2 unit level (first/second/third year) and discipline groupFootnote 3 (business and arts/education/health/science and engineering)?

  2. 2.

    To what extent are these students satisfied with the immersive block model?

Literature review of immersive block learning

Research on immersive block learning has accelerated over the past few years as more institutions have trialled variations of non-traditional teaching models during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Nerantzi & Chatzidamianos, 2020; Roche et al., 2024; Williams, 2023; see also McCluskey et al., 2019). Immersive block models draw upon cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1988), which posits that reducing the interference effects caused by multiple simultaneous units and assessments can heighten focus and manageability and ultimately support better academic achievement (Goode et al., 2024c; Nieuwoudt, 2023; Richmond et al., 2015).

Recent studies in Australia and the UK suggest that in their inaugural year, immersive block models can significantly improve student academic success (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2021). Particularly strong gains in academic achievement have been reported for students in pathway (also known as enabling or access) education (Goode et al., 2024c), first-year undergraduates (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022), international students (Goode et al., 2024b), and for students from equity groups such as low socioeconomic status (LSES) and non-English speaking background (Jackson et al., 2022; Roche et al., 2023).

Despite these increases, some researchers have raised concerns over the depth and rigour of immersive block learning, postulating that students may not achieve deep learning that lasts over time, nor achieve the same academic standards in their immersive studies (Dixon & O’Gorman, 2020; Lutes & Davies, 2018). However, other studies have found that overall, students perceive immersive units to be equivalent to traditional units in intellectual demand or difficulty (Lee & Horsfall, 2010; Richmond et al., 2015). Austin and Gustafson (2006) examined 11,795 achievement records at a regional university in the USA and found that students who completed prerequisites in an immersive block format performed just as well in their subsequent units as students who completed the same prerequisites in longer semesters. Studies have also compared graduate outcomes (Eames et al., 2018) and long-term knowledge retention (Faught et al., 2016) in immersive and traditional models, finding no significant differences in student outcomes between the two models.

There are contrasting results in the literature in relation to student satisfaction. Studies in health (Harwood et al., 2018; Whillier & Lystad, 2013) and education (Ferguson & Defelice, 2010) have found no significant difference in satisfaction between traditional and immersive block units. Other research has found small but significant increases in satisfaction (Goode et al., 2024a), or that high satisfaction has been maintained despite small decreases (Goode et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022). Overall, the literature suggests that impacts on student satisfaction in immersive block models tend to be more moderate than achievement enhancements.

Scheduling changes involved in implementing an immersive block model are typically accompanied by revisioning an institution’s pedagogical framework (McCluskey et al., 2019; Roche et al., 2024). At the host institution, the immersive block model was underpinned by a shift towards active learning. Active learning is fundamentally shaped by an understanding that learning outcomes are influenced by the ways students encounter and generate knowledge in context and that more engaging learning contexts can deliver transformations in outcomes for a more diverse range of students (Roche et al., 2024). It is often an approach that aspires to produce a more inclusive society (Acton, 2023; Dewey, 1938; Syme et al., 2022), as through active processes of inquiry, students are invited to develop “epistemic dispositions for engaging willingly with complexity, knowledge, others, and the world” (Acton, 2023, p. 225).

Despite the advantages of active learning pedagogy, research in Europe has suggested that the “real-world” problems or authenticity associated with active learning in HE can be a double-edged sword (Svensson et al., 2022). A recent study found that while attempts to increase authenticity may add to the legitimacy of content and its transferability to work contexts, the approaches used can be based on fixed or narrow ideas about professional practice and the role of education and can in turn limit students’ abilities to question and think critically about their future careers (Svensson et al., 2022). And, while literature and institutional policy often foregrounds active learning approaches, teacher-centred practice is still often observed in practice, with institutions and individual academics defaulting to delivering lectures (Loughlin & Lindberg-Sand, 2023). Students in some instances prefer lectures (Deslauriers et al., 2019; Penman & Thalluri, 2012) and perceive that lectures can provide a routine, structure and opportunities for forming peer networks through all-cohort gatherings (Loughlin & Lindberg-Sand, 2023). However, several reviews indicate that active learning approaches such as discussion and problem-based learning produce superior learning outcomes and academic results compared to traditional didactic approaches (Freeman et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2015).

The issue of whether immersive block learning combined with active learning pedagogy can provide a compelling way forward for lifting student achievement and feedback across a whole institution is unresolved. Concerns about student workload and outcomes remain salient (Goode et al., 2024b; Jackson et al., 2022), and few investigations have considered more than one year of immersive block delivery. This paper seeks to provide insight into whether this alternative model of HE delivery can shift student outcomes across nearly two years and a range of disciplines and unit levels. The core characteristics of the immersive block model examined in this study are described below.

A case study of curriculum reform: the Southern Cross Model

The case study of immersive block learning on which this paper is based, the Southern Cross Model, is situated at a regional, public institution in Australia with around 19,000 students enrolled in a range of undergraduate, postgraduate and enabling/pathway courses. Programs are delivered through four faculties and two colleges in the disciplinary areas of health, science, engineering, laws, business, information technology, education, Indigenous knowledge and the arts. Typically, only 25% of its students gain admission based on high school results; up to 60% of those admitted are the first in their family to study at university; 40% are resident in regional or remote Australia; 40% study online; 18% are international students; and nearly 5% of the students identify as Indigenous—Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders (Southern Cross University, n.d.).

As shown in Fig. 1, the Southern Cross Model involved a revisioning of the University’s academic calendar (January to December) to structure the year into six terms of six weeks each. Full-time students with a typical enrolment pattern complete eight units a year, as they would have done in the traditional model; however, they complete only two units at a time instead of the previous four.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Teaching terms in the Southern Cross Model

Full size image

At the same time, the entire pedagogical approach required a fundamental rethink, which necessitated a substantive program of transformational curriculum reform. The implementation of the Southern Cross Model was a deliberate “breaking of the mould” (Woelert et al., 2022, p. 1) in attempting to face a number of complex problems related to student retention, success and satisfaction and one which we have acknowledged as a “revolutionary” change (Wilson & Roche, 2022). Revised teaching, learning and assessment policies, procedures and systems drove an institution-wide move towards active, guided learning underpinned by principles of constructive alignment (Biggs, 2014; Cowan et al., 2004; Roche et al., 2024). A revised curriculum mapping and design process was introduced across the institution, whereby course learning outcomes, unit learning outcomes and assessment tasks were mapped, aligned and approved for each unit in the new model (Wilson et al., 2024). Principles were also established to guide the design of units in the Southern Cross Model, articulating that units should be as follows:

  • Focused: aligned around what students “need to know” to meet the learning outcomes

  • Guided: sequenced to scaffold the building of skills and knowledge, with signposts linking elements of a unit’s curriculum

  • Active: including media-rich learning materials that are interactive and responsive (e.g. formative quizzes that provide immediate feedback) and activities aimed at building a community among learners

In practice, a focused, guided and active curriculum was operationalised through the aforementioned curriculum mapping and design process, and the embedding of three main forms of learning in each unit:

  • Self-access online modules that are media-rich, interactive and responsive

  • Scheduled classes that are guided and interactive, involving activities such as discussion, problem-based scenarios and simulations

  • Assessments that are authentic and scaffolded, with no more than three assessments per unit (see Roche et al., 2024 for a more detailed description of the pedagogy of the Southern Cross Model, Goode et al., 2022 for an example of its application, and Wilson et al., 2024 for an outline of how assessment was reformed for block delivery).

Methodology

This study used a quantitative retrospective observational methodology (Lancia et al., 2013) to explore the impact of the Southern Cross Model on student academic success and satisfaction at the host institution across 2021 and 2022. The study was approved by the institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee, approval number 2022/054.

The current study drew on student outcomes across all faculties in the Southern Cross Model, including two years of achievement (success) (N = 27,528) and satisfaction (N = 7924) data from units that transitioned to the immersive model. For each student group considered in the analysis, outcomes for a control group that stayed in the traditional model for the duration of the study were also considered.

Data collection and filtering

Institutional data were obtained from the University’s Office of Business, Intelligence and Quality. One strand of this data comprised observations of students’ academic achievement, enrolment status and demographic details from 2019 through to 2022. The second strand included results from the University’s Unit Feedback Survey (UFS). The UFS is a standardised instrument delivered in the final week of a teaching period before the release of students’ grades. Commonly known as a Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) survey in the literature (Goode et al., 2024a), the UFS includes 5-point Likert scale questions concerning various aspects of unit and teaching design and delivery.

The data were uploaded to STATA 17.0 and separated into four samples of matched-pair units that were offered in the baseline year of 2019 and then in 2021 and/or 2022 (Table 1). Given that only a few units eligible for this study transitioned to the immersive block model in the pilot year of 2021 (see Goode et al., 2023) and the majority transitioned in 2022, the data for 2021 and 2022 were combined. Samples 1 and 3 pertain to achievement and satisfaction observations from units offered in sessions 1 and 2 in 2019 and terms 1–4 in 2021 and/or 2022. Samples 2 and 4 are control groups that remained in the traditional model over the same time periods: sessions 1 and 2 in 2019 and sessions 1 and 2 in 2021 and/or 2022.Footnote 4

Table 1 Study samples
Full size table

Data analysis

Each sample was separated into sub-cohorts across attendance mode (internal/external), unit year level (first/second/third) and discipline group (business and arts/education/health/science and engineering), and descriptive statistics were generated for each population.

Success rates were calculated as the proportion of unit completions from unit attempts recorded at a study period Census Date, i.e. success rate = Completed / (Completed + Failed + Withdrawn). Following Field’s (2018) recommendation for non-normal data, Pearson’s chi-square tests were conducted for each sub-cohort, and Cramér’s V was generated for effect size. While varying interpretations of Cramér’s V exist in the literature, this study follows Akoglu (2018) in recognising a value > 0.05 as weak, > 0.1 as moderate, > 0.15 as strong and > 0.25 as very strong.

UFS items referring to overall unit satisfaction (“Overall, I am satisfied with this unit”) and overall teaching satisfaction (“Overall, I am satisfied with the teaching in this unit”) were identified for analysis of student satisfaction. The data were dichotomised into two values: agreement (ratings of 5 strongly agree, or 4 agree), and non-agreement, including a neutral response (ratings of 3 average, 2 disagree or 1 strongly disagree). Pearson’s chi-square tests were conducted to identify significant changes, and Cramér’s V outputs were generated for effect sizes.

Results

In this section, findings related to both student achievement (success) and student satisfaction are presented for the sampled cohorts. Overall, the success rates of all student cohorts increased in the Southern Cross Model to a highly statistically significant degree at the 0.1% level, with the exception of third-year students (see Table 2). For all cohorts, the increase in success exceeded increases seen in the equivalent control group; effect sizes were also larger for immersive block model cohorts.

Table 2 Descriptive and inferential statistics for academic achievement, in 2019 and the combined years of 2021 and 2022
Full size table

UFS response rates in 2019 averaged 26.7% and ranged from 24.8% to 32.5%. Response rates for the combined years of 2021 and 2022 averaged 31.1% and ranged from 26.6% to 39.9%. In contrast to the academic achievement results, statistically significant decreases in unit satisfaction were observed in the immersive model overall, and for all but two sub-groups: third-year and education units (see Table 3). The control groups experienced a small statistically significant increase in unit satisfaction overall, as well as among continuing, first-year and education students.

There were fewer, and smaller, decreases for teaching satisfaction compared to unit satisfaction. Control groups did not experience any statistically significant change in teaching satisfaction. Large decreases in both unit and teaching satisfaction (> 10%) were observed for one cohort: science and engineering.

Table 3 Descriptive and inferential statistics for overall unit and overall teaching satisfaction, in 2019 and the combined years of 2021 and 2022
Full size table

Discussion

This study has explored the impact of a radical, whole-of-institution curriculum reform at a public Australian university, where a traditional semester model (involving learning four units at a time, lectures, and examinations) was replaced with an immersive block model underpinned by active learning pedagogy. Given the scope and complexity of this innovative curriculum change, as well as its relative recency, the research aim was broad: to provide insight into the impact of this delivery model on student achievement and feedback at scale across study modes, unit levels and disciplines, over a 2-year period.

A key insight gained is that implementing an immersive block model can have a significant positive impact on the academic success of undergraduate students, whether they are studying online or on-campus, whether they are in first, second, or third-year units, and across multiple discipline groups (here business, arts, education, health, science, and engineering). For all these cohorts, success or pass rates rose to a statistically significant extent in the immersive block model. This contributes multi-year evidence of impact to a growing body of work indicating that shorter, more focused, and active learning delivery models can be an effective way of enhancing student achievement in HE (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2021).

It is of note, however, that at the time of the study, there were often improvements in both the control groups and the units which were moved into the new model. This is likely to be due to changes in policy and practice beyond the model, including a new Academic Integrity Framework which took an educative and preventative approach and reduced breaches at the institution; a new Special Considerations Framework which improved the consistency and timeliness of processing requests for assessment extensions; and increased professional development opportunities for all academic staffon teaching design and delivery at the university. By and large however, across the groups analysed, increases in student achievement for those units in the immersive block model consistently and without exception outperformed the control group units, while effect sizes tended to be negligible-to-weak for control groups but weak-to-moderate for Southern Cross Model groups (Akoglu, 2018).

Looking at the sub-groups examined, increases in success were comparable for internal and external students. This indicates that immersive block models can be a compelling alternative delivery model for improving student success across both online and on-campus study modes. In a post-COVID era, this is a notable finding that may be of interest to institutions with relatively high proportions of part-time, mature-age, and regional or remote students who are more likely to choose online study (Stone, 2022). In parallel, there was a strong increase in success among the external control group units. This likely signals the positive impact of an uplift in online unit design and teaching across the institution, driven by the shift to a more digitised, interactive curriculum across the university as part of the immersive model (Goode et al., 2022).

The data further suggest that the introduction of an immersive block model has provided some “transition support” for novice HE students. While at an aggregate level all undergraduate students have shown an increase in achievement in the immersive block model, as measured by success rates, the analysis shows that the increase for first-year units was the largest, followed by second year and then third year. Considered together with previous studies which indicate pronounced and significant gains for pre-award pathway students (Goode et al., 2024c; Nieuwoudt, 2023), this declining level of impact as unit level and student experience increases indicates that immersive block models may have stronger impacts on novice students who are commencing university study. Such models may provide, as previous research has also suggested (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2024c; Nieuwoudt, 2023; Richmond et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2021), a more focused study experience that relieves the added cognitive load of adapting to an unfamiliar academic environment and its attendant conventions. The integration of active learning into the model may have also played a role in this transition support, given that direct instruction can result in lower levels of academic integration among first and second-year students compared to more active learning environments (Schaeper, 2020).

There was some variation evident across the disciplinary groups studied. A strong positive impact on student achievement in the immersive block model was found for health, business and arts, and science and engineering; increases and effect sizes also exceeded those observed for the control groups. In education, however, the impact of the immersive block model was statistically significant but minimal. This cohort was already performing highly in the traditional model, with success more than 9% higher than other discipline areas in the baseline year. Thus, the immersive block model appears to have had an “uplift effect,” bringing success rates in some disciplines closer to those disciplines already performing highly.

However, contrasting with the positive achievement results, student satisfaction did not shift upwards. While most students (> 75%) were satisfied or very satisfied with units in the Southern Cross Model, and even more so with the teaching in the model (> 80%), decreases were observed for numerous cohorts on previous satisfaction scores. It is worth noting that despite these decreases, overall measures still exceed the Australian national average for student satisfaction, whereby 73% of Australian undergraduates indicated that they had a positive overall educational experience in 2021 (Social Research Centre, 2022). Nonetheless, these equivocal findings in relation to satisfaction feedback point towards the complexities involved in major, institution-wide curriculum reform, especially during a time of transition between two radically different models of teaching and learning.

On campus (i.e. internal) students were less satisfied than online (i.e. external) students in the new model, although unit satisfaction remained above 70% and teaching satisfaction above 85%. It is notable that other immersive block models tend to integrate frequent, extended classes into their pedagogical approach (Konjarski et al., 2023). Although satisfaction did not initially increase in block models employed elsewhere (Loton et al., 2022), students report valuing being able to engage early and consistently with peers, especially in the crucial first year of their studies (Ambler et al., 2021). In contrast, the digitisation of the curriculum in the Southern Cross Model led to some reductions in face-to-face class time compared to the longer trimester format. The volume and frequency of scheduled class time may be an important element driving satisfaction among internal students in immersive block models, and one which may require some reconsideration in the Southern Cross Model, while presenting an important learning for other institutions. Analysis of free-text student feedback, interviews or focus groups could explore this issue further.

In relation to satisfaction across unit levels, the largest decrease in both unit and teaching satisfaction was observed in second-year units. This provides some indication that students transitioning from one learning model to a radically different one mid-program may find this change difficult, ultimately affecting their satisfaction as measured in end-of-unit feedback surveys. This is a novel finding from this study, given that most other immersive block model studies have focused on first-year cohorts (Ambler et al., 2021; Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Goode et al., 2023; Loton et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2021), and one that also has implications for other institutions considering immersive block models. It is possible, though not able to be confirmed in this study, that satisfaction among first-year students was also negatively affected by transitioning to the new model, given that many part-time students in their second year of study would still be completing units from the first year of their undergraduate award. The data suggest that the implementation of an immersive block model—or indeed other major curriculum changes that diverge radically from traditional delivery—may best be staggered across year levels so that most students complete their programs in the model they commenced in, rather than transitioning midway.

Analyses by discipline group reveal some stark variation in satisfaction, reflecting Konjarski et al.’s (2023) observation that “[h]ow effectively the Block performs in disparate disciplines has long been a point of, if not contention, then at least discussion” (p. 11; see also Dixon & O’Gorman, 2020). Unit satisfaction declined in business and arts and health, with no impact observed in education, while teaching satisfaction largely remained stable across these disciplines. In science and engineering, however, larger decreases were observed for both unit and teaching satisfaction, suggesting that uneven adoption of the immersive model principles has occurred across disciplines in these initial years of implementation (Roche et al., 2024).

As part of any curriculum change, pedagogy must be considered situated in a place. Any curriculum transformation is a public endeavour, and academics must be considered positioned “inside participatory processes with possibilities to renegotiate, rearticulate and resignify pedagogy” (Kinuthia, 2023, p. 1). In the case of moving from a more traditional chalk-and-talk, semester-length learning experience to an active learning pedagogy in an immersive block model, a particularly pronounced pedagogical shift likely occurred for both staff and students in science and engineering, affecting satisfaction results to a larger extent than in other disciplines. Didactic teaching models have long been the norm in STEM education (Stains et al., 2018), with studies indicating that even when active learning is implemented, it is most commonly through integrating problem-solving activities into traditional lectures (Nguyen et al., 2021). Students, and particularly those who transitioned to the immersive block model mid-program, may have expected and preferred more didactic teaching methods (Deslauriers et al., 2019; Penman & Thalluri, 2012), ultimately finding the initial experiences in the new model less satisfying than in previous years. Meanwhile, staff may not have had sufficient professional support and/or existing pedagogical expertise to completely redesign unit curricula for the initial year of active learning, immersive block delivery (Roche et al., 2024). Recent evidence suggests that careful and purposeful redesign of curriculum is critical for positive learning experiences in immersive block models (Buck & Tyrrell, 2022; Samarawickrema et al., 2022) as are communities of practice to support the professional development of staff teaching into these models (Roche et al., 2024). Without further exploration of staff and student views, it is not possible to determine here if there is something inherent in some disciplines that make them less suited to immersive block teaching or if staff development and implementation are at cause here—these issues merit further exploration.

Overall, then, this study has demonstrated the effectiveness of an immersive block model for heightening student achievement at scale in a HE institution with high proportions of non-traditional learners. However, it has also highlighted that a radical institutional-wide curriculum reform of this nature may not be a “magic bullet” for improved student satisfaction in a time of changing student preferences. Curriculum reform is highly complex (Jackson et al., 2022; Shay, 2016), and divergences between intended and implemented curriculum can translate into uneven outcomes (Case & Heydendrych, 2018). In this study, the most pronounced differences in satisfaction were observed across disciplines, with the largest decline observed in science and engineering. During the implementation of an immersive block model, it appears vital to keep a close and continued eye on student satisfaction—while success is a key goal, satisfied students are equally important and can have significant impacts on motivation and retention.

Limitations and future research

As is often the case in observational research in complex real-world contexts, there were some interacting factors in this investigation. The relative contributions of various elements of the Southern Cross Model, including the 6-week term duration, the 2-unit full-time load, the application of active learning pedagogy and the integration of online modules in the curriculum, could not be teased out in the data. Despite the inclusion of control groups in this study, it is also difficult to identify how COVID-19 (with lockdowns still happening intermittently in 2021) may have contributed to the results observed here.

Additionally, variations in satisfaction across discipline groups emerged as a site of complexity in this study, and precise drivers behind the results for each group will require further investigation. An important avenue for future research is therefore to unpack these differences and track trends over time. While this study yielded an initial view of impact across faculty groupings at the host institution, as the entire university including more disciplines in health (e.g. nursing, midwifery, osteopathy, biomedical science) and law move into the immersive block model, a more granular analysis of results over time according to Field of Education (FoE) will be a valuable addition to the literature on immersive block models in HE. A possible transition effect identified here, whereby students who commenced study in the traditional model but then transitioned to the new model partway through their program and found this shift dissatisfying, could be better understood by analysing the student feedback in terms of students who are new and not new to the model. And, while this study drew on metrics that are typically used as quality assurance indicators in HE sectors, namely student pass rates and results from standardised, institution-wide unit feedback surveys, student and staff perspectives gathered through focus groups and interviews may also bring more nuanced and in-depth insights, particularly around discipline differences in student feedback.

Finally, although academic success is an important measure of student learning and progression, year-on-year student retention and degree completion are other areas of concern in HE and have underpinned the implementation of the Southern Cross Model (Roche et al., 2024). Research on retention and degree completion in the immersive block model is needed in future.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated that an immersive block model underpinned by active learning pedagogy is a viable alternative to traditional academic models in HE, with the potential to make a significant positive difference to students’ academic success at scale and across multiple study modes, unit levels and disciplines. This is an important finding, considering the high cost of academic failure for individuals, institutions and the communities they serve (Kift, 2015).

The institution within which this study was conducted enrols relatively high proportions of students from non-traditional groups who typically have lower HE retention and completion rates than their peers (Kift, 2015; Li & Jackson, 2023; Stone, 2022). This study therefore suggests that the more focused and active approach to learning enabled by the Southern Cross Model may be particularly supportive of academic success for diverse and non-traditional student cohorts in HE. The larger increases in academic success for first-year units as compared to third-year units further indicate that immersive block models may provide stronger “transition support” to commencing students in the important first year of HE than traditional HE approaches, smoothing their adjustment by allowing them to focus on just one or two units at a time. As HE institutions globally continue to grow and enrol increasingly diverse cohorts of students, evidenced-based approaches to curriculum innovation such as the one presented here suggest the importance of reconsidering our traditional HE curriculum models.

However, as detailed elsewhere (Roche et al., 2024), implementing an immersive block model across a university requires change to almost all aspects of the institution, including not only scheduling, but also policy, business processes and pedagogy. This study indicates that gains in student satisfaction may not be immediate nor uniform across disciplines during such radical curriculum change. In this initial year of almost institution-wide implementation, unit satisfaction declined to the greatest extent in science and engineering, and more work is needed to understand if this is something inherent to these particular disciplines, or if it was the way the model was implemented. With these considerations in mind, the more focused and active learning supported by immersive block models such as the Southern Cross Model are proving to be a compelling way forward for universities to better engage and support students from heterogeneous and non-traditional backgrounds in a time of rapid and complex change in HE.