Advance HE's tech access findings sharpen pre-arrival student feedback
Updated Aug 11, 2026
Pre-arrival student feedback can reveal a digital access problem before it disrupts teaching. On 29 July 2026, Advance HE published Time to talk tech: results from the National Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire pilot, presenting new findings on the devices and mobile data available to incoming students. For teams responsible for student voice in higher education, the practical point is clear: asking about digital confidence is not enough if institutions do not also know whether students can access virtual learning environments, course materials, and online support reliably.
What has changed in pre-arrival student feedback
The development is a new analysis of technology access data from the first national Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire (PAQ) pilot. The pilot was funded by the Office for Students, led by Advance HE, Jisc, and the University of East London, and completed across 15 institutions in its first phase. The article reports findings for undergraduate and postgraduate taught respondents, with results split between UK and non-UK domiciled students. It is not a new survey requirement. It shows how an existing pre-arrival evidence source can test assumptions about students' readiness for digital study.
The device data complicates the idea that smartphone ownership equals reliable access. Every respondent included in Advance HE's operating-system table had a phone, but the article says most phones were at least two years old. It also reports that 11 per cent of undergraduate respondents expected a smartphone to be their main way of accessing information and learning materials. Older devices can bring software incompatibility, limited storage, slower processing, and weaker video or audio performance. The institutional takeaway is to assess whether students can complete learning tasks on the technology they have, not simply whether they own a device.
The mobile data findings add a second constraint. Among UK-domiciled respondents, 29.5 per cent of undergraduates and 31.1 per cent of taught postgraduates reported unlimited data. The equivalent figures for non-UK respondents were 18.6 per cent and 16.9 per cent. Advance HE therefore recommends device loan schemes, reliable campus Wi-Fi, study spaces, targeted digital support, and explicit opportunities to build digital capabilities. These findings give institutions a more precise basis for deciding which access barriers to test before term starts.
"Successful transition into HE is about more than accessing technology; it’s about enabling confident, independent learners."
Advance HE also connects access with wider readiness. Its recommendations cover navigating virtual learning environments, managing digital resources, protecting privacy, collaborating online, and using digital and AI tools critically and ethically. The implication is that pre-arrival technology questions should inform induction, curriculum design, support, and learning-resource decisions together, rather than sit in a separate digital-services report.
What this means for institutions
First, universities should separate device ownership, effective access, and digital capability when they design pre-arrival questions. A student may own a smartphone but still face storage limits, an outdated operating system, capped data, or no suitable device for sustained academic work. Asking only whether someone has internet access can hide the difference between occasional connectivity and reliable participation. The benefit of a more specific question set is that teams can match support to the actual barrier.
Second, institutions need an action route before they collect the data. The earlier Jisc PAQ implementation update showed participating universities beginning to use pre-arrival evidence to shape induction, communications, and targeted support. Advance HE's technology findings make that route more concrete. Survey leads should agree who reviews device and connectivity results, what triggers a loan or support offer, and how course teams will be told about common access constraints. The takeaway is simple: early evidence only helps when ownership is already clear.
Third, segmentation needs care. The differences in unlimited data allowances between UK and non-UK respondents show why a whole-cohort average may conceal meaningful access patterns. Institutions should review findings by level and domicile where sample sizes support it, while avoiding assumptions about any individual student. They should also check whether survey responses align with administrative and support records. The earlier Advance HE case study on pre-arrival disclosure gaps shows how quickly a useful signal can disappear when datasets do not connect. A governed comparison gives quality and student experience teams a clearer view of who may be missed.
Finally, universities should test whether support changed the experience after arrival. Follow-up pulse surveys, module feedback, service data, and representative channels can show whether students still report difficulty accessing VLEs, online materials, specialist software, or digital support. This closes the loop between an early risk signal and the learning experience students actually encounter.
How student feedback analysis connects
Technology access data identifies where friction may occur, but later open-text feedback can explain how that friction affects learning. Comments may point to inaccessible file formats, software that will not run on older devices, unreliable Wi-Fi, limited study space, or unclear routes to technical help. Reading those comments alongside pre-arrival responses helps teams distinguish a capability gap from a device, connectivity, or course-design problem. The benefit is a more specific response than a generic digital-skills intervention.
Where institutions collect comments across pre-arrival questionnaires, induction checks, module evaluations, and annual surveys, they need a consistent way to compare themes without losing the source and timing of each signal. Student Voice Analytics offers one reproducible route for that analysis. The immediate practice point applies whatever method teams use: preserve cohort context, document review decisions, and check whether later feedback shows that access barriers have reduced.
FAQ
Q: What should institutions do now with these PAQ technology findings?
A: Review pre-arrival and induction questions to see whether they distinguish device ownership from reliable access, data limits, software compatibility, and digital confidence. Then map each finding to a named owner, such as digital services, library teams, student support, or course leadership, before the next intake arrives.
Q: What is the timeline and scope of the Advance HE update?
A: Advance HE published the article on 29 July 2026. It analyses technology access findings from the first phase of the OfS-funded national PAQ pilot, undertaken across 15 institutions, and reports results for undergraduate and postgraduate taught respondents. It is a sector practice update, not a mandatory survey or regulatory change.
Q: What is the broader implication for student voice?
A: Pre-arrival student voice becomes more useful when it tests the practical conditions students need to participate, not only their expectations or confidence. Institutions can then connect early access evidence with in-term feedback and check whether support removed the barriers students actually experienced.
References
[Advance HE]: "Time to talk tech: results from the National Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire pilot" Published: 2026-07-29
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround