How did COVID-19 affect cinematics and photography students?

COVID-19cinematics and photography

Yes. Across the COVID-19 topic in UK National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text feedback for 2018–2025, 12,355 comments are tagged to COVID-19 and 68.6% are negative. Within the UK subject classification for cinematics and photography, ~3,337 comments indicate the discipline trends positive overall (55.6% Positive), but COVID‑19‑specific remarks still recur, making up 5.1% of comments and concentrating on disrupted access, timetabling and value. These sector patterns shape the story below and point to where programme choices most affect the student experience.

The necessity for close interaction in these fields, often requiring hands-on use of equipment and collaboration in tight-knit groups, has been significantly disrupted. The attempt to shift these practical engagements online was not without its difficulties, highlighting the profound divide in access to essential digital tools and spaces required for effective learning and creation. This shift tested the adaptability of course deliveries and the resilience of students and their educators. From the lockdown's onset, institutions and staff re-evaluated teaching methodologies, seeking a balance between practical and theoretical components of photography and film education. Engaging students through virtual forums now sits alongside studio-based activity. The analysis of student voices through surveys and text feedback has guided adaptations, with implications for current delivery and the future landscape of cinematics and photography education.

How did practical coursework get disrupted?

Restrictions on physical gatherings interrupted location shoots and studio access that define learning in cinematics and photography. Programmes rely on direct interaction with diverse environments and professional-grade equipment that are hard to replicate remotely. Institutions introduced guidelines to enable some on-site activity, but provision varied and access remained fragile. Some schools offered limited studio slots under safety protocols; others had to close facilities, prompting alternative forms of practical engagement. Students’ capacity to adapt depended on personal space and equipment at home. The situation stimulated creativity for some while straining learning outcomes and motivation for others. Staff adjusted briefs, rebalanced theory and practice, and prioritised support to bridge gaps.

What changed in the transition to online learning?

Online delivery sustained seminars, critiques and post‑production, but could not replace field and studio practice. Teams employed creative strategies to simulate aspects of practical experience and adjusted curricular priorities to fit constraints. Some students developed resourceful home‑based projects; others struggled without tactile interaction with their medium. Where continuity of learning and assessment clarity were maintained, engagement held up; where expectations drifted, uncertainty grew. Programme leaders now strengthen virtual spaces and make completion routes explicit so students acquire necessary skills despite altered contexts.

Where did creative adaptation and innovation occur?

Students used home environments, everyday materials and remote collaboration to push assignment boundaries. Virtual workshops and peer feedback sustained communities of practice. Staff integrated more digital resources and online masterclasses into modules, keeping learning relevant and engaging. This period underlined the value of flexibility and creative resilience in assessment briefs, scheduling and access arrangements.

Who could access equipment and technology?

Courses reliant on cameras, lighting and edit suites faced immediate access challenges. Loan schemes expanded and software access widened, but digital inequality surfaced: stable connectivity and suitable workspace made a substantive difference. Providers complemented physical kit with higher‑quality online resources and simulations to approximate studio environments. Clear booking rules, prompt fixes and visible updates helped protect the facilities advantage that students value, while a single source of truth for changes reduced confusion.

How did mental health and wellbeing change?

Isolation, disrupted collaboration and uncertainty affected wellbeing. Cinematics and photography often hinge on group work and hands‑on activity, so curtailed interaction compounded stress. Many institutions used student surveys to understand needs, then offered online wellbeing workshops, easier routes to support and stronger communication. Open channels for concerns, timely Q&A sessions and consistent module‑level information helped reduce anxiety and sustain motivation.

What happened to industry connection and future prospects?

Internships, on‑set experiences and in‑person networking shrank, raising concerns about graduate readiness. At the same time, virtual showcases, online portfolios and remote guest lectures expanded reach and visibility. Programmes responded by building digital networking into modules, curating employer‑facing events and piloting online internships to mitigate lost in‑person exposure. These approaches develop habits graduates now need in an increasingly digital professional landscape.

What should programmes prioritise next?

Programmes continue to strengthen disruption‑ready delivery: keep a simple playbook for rapid shifts in teaching, assessment and access, and maintain a single, up‑to‑date source of truth that explains what changed and why. Tackle operational pain points where students most often report issues by naming a single owner for timetabling and course logistics, setting and honouring a change window, and publishing weekly micro‑briefings. Make assessment criteria unmistakable with annotated exemplars, checklist‑style rubrics and realistic turnaround commitments, and close the loop on how feedback informs subsequent work. Maintain hybrid models in which theory sits online while practical learning is scheduled in safe, priority‑based blocks. Be transparent on costs and value by showing what contact, resources and support include, and how these translate into tangible benefits. Finally, bring industry into the virtual classroom through guest sessions, online showreels and time‑bounded briefs, so students keep building real‑world confidence.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• Track COVID‑19 topic volume and sentiment over time, then drill down from institution to school/department, cohort and site for cinematics and photography.
• Compare like‑for‑like across CAH groups and demographics (age, domicile, mode, commuter status), and segment by campus or provider to target interventions where sentiment will shift.
• Generate concise, anonymised summaries and export tables/figures for rapid briefing to programme and quality teams.
• Surface where facilities access, timetabling, assessment clarity and student support drive tone, and evidence progress against the right peer group.

Request a walkthrough

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

• All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
• Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
• Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Book a demo Prefer email? [email protected]

More posts on COVID-19:

• Did the pandemic reshape psychology students’ learning and wellbeing?
• What did COVID-19 change for anatomy, physiology and pathology students?
• How did COVID-19 change sport and exercise sciences learning and research?
• Did COVID-19 undermine UK biology students’ learning and wellbeing?

More posts on cinematics and photography student views:

• How do cinematics and photography students rate their general facilities?
• What helps cinematics and photography students thrive at university?