What does student feedback tell us about remote learning in History?
Student feedback shows a mixed picture for History: in the National Student Survey (NSS), the remote learning theme reads 42.0% Positive and 53.8% Negative (sentiment index −3.4) across subjects, while the history classification used for sector benchmarking reports a negative tone for remote delivery specifically (−16.9) even as students remain upbeat about teaching and content. Within History, the sharpest friction sits with assessment clarity, where Marking criteria scores −46.8. Programmes that establish a stable online rhythm, ensure asynchronous parity, and publish plain‑English criteria tend to protect the strengths students value.
How has remote delivery changed engagement with historical study? Remote learning alters seminar dynamics that underpin historical argument and debate. The absence of a shared room can dull momentum, yet digital access to archives and international speakers widens horizons. History cohorts respond best when modules schedule predictable live seminars for analysis and debate, then provide a recording and short summary for those who study asynchronously. A single, stable link hub per module and short, well‑timed blocks sustain attention and reduce friction.
What happens to research skills and resource access online? Students rely on primary sources and secondary scholarship; digital provision expands access but exposes gaps in skills and connectivity. Library and learning resources teams can mitigate this by curating discipline‑specific routes into digital collections, offering online research methods workshops, and providing low‑bandwidth versions, captions, transcripts and alt‑text. A short “getting set online” orientation for new cohorts, plus consistent signposting to referencing and search support, preserves the quality of historical analysis.
Where do technological barriers create learning disparities? Inequitable access to devices and stable internet depresses participation and amplifies stress at assessment points. Providers should maintain device‑loan schemes, realistic audio/video standards, and time‑zone‑aware office hours for international learners. Publishing a one‑page “how we work online” playbook per programme and monitoring weekly friction points (access, audio, link churn, timetable slips) enable quick fixes that students notice.
How do students judge quality and value in remote History? Perceptions of value rest on the coherence of delivery, the usefulness of feedback, and whether online activities feel purposeful rather than a substitute. History students often celebrate strong teaching and module choice when programmes make expectations explicit, integrate high‑quality digital archives, and use small‑group seminars to test argument and evidence. Being open about the balance between scheduled learning and guided independent study, and evidencing changes made in response to feedback, helps address value concerns.
What does interaction and support look like online? Students rate access to staff highly when it is predictable and responsive. Virtual office hours at consistent times, quick written follow‑ups to key announcements, and timely, criterion‑aligned feedback keep cohorts engaged. Closing the loop with “what we changed and why” updates builds trust and sustains community.
Which strategies improve remote History education now?
- Make assessment criteria usable: publish annotated exemplars, checklist‑style rubrics and plain‑English marking criteria; align feedback to them.
- Standardise the weekly rhythm: same platform, day and joining route; short live segments with active tasks; searchable recordings and concise summaries.
- Keep materials remote‑first: transcripts, captions, alt‑text and low‑bandwidth options; a single link hub per module.
- Support international and commuting learners: time‑zone‑aware office hours, flexible deadlines where appropriate, and written recaps for critical information.
- Monitor and act weekly: track pain points and post brief updates on what was fixed.
What are the implications for the next iteration? Remote and hybrid delivery now sit within mainstream provision for History. Strengthening assessment clarity, stabilising online routines and maintaining asynchronous parity preserves the discipline’s academic core while widening access to sources. Programme teams should continue to test changes against NSS open‑text, document adjustments to assessment briefs and timetabling, and retain the digital practices that demonstrably lift engagement.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you Student Voice Analytics surfaces where remote delivery helps or hinders History. It tracks topic volume and sentiment over time, with drill‑downs from provider to programme and cohort, and like‑for‑like comparisons across disciplines and demographics. You can target assessment clarity and delivery fixes, produce concise anonymised summaries for programme teams and governance, and export ready‑made tables and charts to support rapid improvement cycles.
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 remote learning:
- What do philosophy students say about remote learning?
- What are sociology students saying about remote learning?
- Can biomedical sciences be taught effectively remotely?
- Did remote learning work for mechanical engineering students?