What do dental students say about their teaching staff?
Students describe their dental teaching staff positively overall, with strong professional support alongside recurring concerns about consistency and communication. In the National Student Survey (NSS), 78.3% of comments about Teaching Staff are positive (sentiment index +52.8), and Medicine and dentistry sits higher at +58.1. Within Dentistry, overall mood runs 60.4% positive, while Communication about course and teaching trends negative at −40.9. These wider sector patterns shape this story: students value expertise and approachability, and they ask for predictable guidance, standardised feedback and reliable updates across clinics and modules.
What works best about teaching staff?
Students often appreciate the knowledge and experience of dental teaching staff and how staff create supportive, productive learning environments. They highlight accessibility and encouragement during the intricate learning of clinical techniques. Engaging interactions in classroom and clinic promote effective learning, and staff who use student voice in day-to-day teaching lift confidence and motivation. This feedback signals the value of disciplined professional development so teams sustain behaviours students notice most.
Where does inconsistency and feedback hold students back?
Variation in teaching approaches and feedback quality can derail learning in a precision discipline. When instructors apply different standards or offer uneven feedback, students second-guess their technique. Some receive detailed, actionable comments; others hear little or vague guidance. Standardising feedback methods, calibrating expectations and using text analysis of student comments to target outliers helps teams tighten practice.
Should grading be standardised across clinics and modules?
Variability in grading within and across schools confuses students and adds stress. In a practical field, consistent criteria improve fairness, transparency and the credibility of grades as indicators of skill. A framework that protects pedagogic autonomy while aligning marking criteria, rubrics and calibration routines reduces bias and creates equal opportunity. Students should help shape the framework so it reflects the realities of clinical learning.
How can teams reduce conflicting supervisory advice?
Divergent supervisor guidance dents confidence. Regular team calibrations, shared exemplars and concise technique sheets reduce noise. Short huddles before clinics, and quick debriefs that log agreed standards in a single source of truth, help staff present a unified approach across the week.
Do students see themselves in clinical role models?
Limited representation, especially of women in clinical teaching, affects belonging and aspiration. Targeted recruitment, mentoring and visible leadership roles for underrepresented staff strengthen the learning environment and reflect the diversity of the cohort. Students repeatedly connect relatable role models with engagement and progression.
How can we reduce subjectivity in assessments?
Subjectivity is inherent in clinical judgement, but institutions can bound it. Checklist-style rubrics, annotated exemplars, double marking where proportionate, and light-touch moderation sessions align interpretations. Anonymised peer review for elements that allow it can further balance assessor preferences and improve feedback utility.
How should staff communicate during uncertainty?
During disruption, students prioritise predictability and clarity. A single source of truth for updates, short weekly summaries of what changed and why, and consistent multi-channel communications reduce anxiety. Regular virtual Q&A and rapid pulse surveys surface issues early so course teams can act and then show what changed.
How can students benefit from more diverse teaching experiences?
Exposure to varied pedagogical and clinical approaches builds adaptability. Rotations across teaching teams, clinics and case types broaden problem-solving repertoires. Staff exchanges of methods and micro-teaching observations spread effective practice. Ongoing student surveys should inform adjustments to maximise learning gain.
What should schools do next?
Calibrate and standardise where students feel inconsistency most, particularly around feedback, grading and supervisory guidance. Protect the strong baseline by making high-trust behaviours visible and predictable, and use student voice evidence to prioritise the operational fixes that unlock learning. This combination sustains the strengths students recognise in teaching staff while addressing avoidable friction in dental education.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns open-text comments into focused action for dentistry and teaching staff. It provides:
- Continuous visibility of Teaching Staff and Dentistry themes with drill-downs from provider to programme and cohort.
- Like-for-like comparison across CAH subject families and student demographics, plus segmentation by mode, campus and year.
- Simple dashboards to track sentiment and close the loop with students, highlighting where inconsistency or comms issues persist.
- Concise, anonymised summaries and export-ready outputs for quality boards, programme reviews and clinical team briefings.
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.
More posts on teaching staff:
- What do art, architecture and design students say about their teaching staff?
- What do students say about teaching staff in French studies?
- What are tourism, transport and travel students saying about teaching staff?
- How do human geography students rate their teaching staff?