IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jomorg/v14y2008i01p4-19_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Block or traditional? An analysis of student choice of teaching format

Author

Listed:
  • Burton, Suzan
  • Nesbit, Paul L

Abstract

Block (or intensive) teaching is used by many management schools, but the factors that drive students to choose (or avoid) block subjects are not well understood. This paper reviews the research findings on intensive teaching and analyses the factors which predict student choice between different teaching formats, based on an analysis of qualitative and quantitative survey data. If studying one subject at a time, a majority of students appear to prefer a less intensive format. However the results show that three factors influence students' likelihood to choose the block format: their experience with the format, their perception of their ability in a particular subject and their concurrent subject load. There are also subject specific differences in student preferences. Implications for block scheduling and for actions to address perceived disadvantages of the block method are addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Burton, Suzan & Nesbit, Paul L, 2008. "Block or traditional? An analysis of student choice of teaching format," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 4-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:14:y:2008:i:01:p:4-19_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1833367200003448/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:14:y:2008:i:01:p:4-19_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jmo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.