What do UK history students say about teaching delivery?
By Student Voice Analytics
delivery of teachinghistoryYes. Students value lively, seminar-led teaching and accessible staff, but they want more consistent online provision and clearer assessment. Across the United Kingdom, the delivery of teaching category brings together National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text feedback on how teaching is delivered; the history grouping spans History programmes nationally. In these data, 60.2% of comments are positive with a sentiment index of +23.9, but experiences diverge by mode: full‑time students register +27.3 compared with +7.2 for part‑time. Within history, praise for teaching staff is particularly strong at +41.1, which underpins students’ emphasis on dynamic lecturers, small‑group discussion and timely access to staff.
History teaching in UK universities has changed considerably, influenced by global events and a more blended model. Listening to students helps staff prioritise what sustains engagement and where delivery falls short. Our analysis draws on survey comments and text analytics to interpret the shape of their experience, then applies those insights to teaching practice in seminars, lectures and online spaces.
What do students value in dynamic teaching?
Students prize lecturers who combine disciplinary expertise with engaging delivery. They point to sessions that make historical actors and contexts vivid, and to staff who explain complex theories accessibly. The strongest praise in history centres on the contribution of teaching staff and their availability, so lecturers who structure sessions with explicit signposting, interactive discussion and well‑chosen visual material tend to be cited as exemplars. Framing each session around the assessment brief and the marking criteria, and showing how reading translates into argumentation, sustains attention and supports progression across the module.
Why do students prefer small group learning?
Small seminars and tutorials allow focused debate and close reading, which history students associate with deeper understanding. These environments enable staff to provide personalised guidance and timely formative feedback, and they support participation from quieter students. Embedding short, structured discussion tasks, rotating roles in source analysis, and using brief micro‑exemplars of high‑quality responses helps students practise disciplinary thinking while keeping sessions inclusive and purposeful.
How do students experience online learning platforms?
Students welcome flexibility but report weaker immersion online when interaction is limited. To reduce the mode gap, programmes prioritise parity: high‑quality recordings, slides released in advance, clear summaries, and asynchronous access to assessment briefings. Chunking longer materials, adding short formative checks, and using forum prompts tied to seminar preparation preserve the pace and dialogue that students value. Pulse checks after teaching blocks ensure online design keeps students engaged and supports those balancing study with work and care.
Where does teaching quality vary, and how can we stabilise it?
Variability often comes from uneven structure rather than content. A light‑touch delivery rubric focused on structure, clarity, pacing and interaction helps spread effective habits across modules. Standardising slide architecture and terminology reduces cognitive load, while short peer observations and 5–10 minute micro‑exemplars enable quick peer learning. Regular review of pulse‑check results with programme teams keeps attention on actions that move student perception in a measurable way.
What support strengthens history research and academic writing?
Students ask for explicit guidance on research practice and argumentative writing. Workshops that walk through topic selection, source evaluation and note‑making, linked to annotated exemplars and checklist‑style marking criteria, make expectations transparent. Aligning feedback to those criteria and providing model paragraphs or plans helps students connect reading to structure and analysis. Clear turnaround commitments and consistent use of assessment language across modules reduce confusion and make feedback more actionable.
How do we improve accessibility for students with additional needs?
Text‑heavy programmes must ensure alternative formats and navigable design. Providing transcripts, alt‑text, audio versions, and materials compatible with screen readers, plus readable slide templates and manageable reading loads with explicit priorities, widens access. Signposting to “what to do next” after each session and offering catch‑up summaries benefit many students, not only those with declared needs.
What are the practical steps to improve delivery?
Universities standardise online materials and ensure asynchronous access to core briefings. They maintain structured, interactive contact through seminars and discussion fora, backed by regular pulse checks and termly reviews with programme teams. They collect student feedback systematically and act on it, especially around assessment clarity. Programmes also invest in academic writing and research skills support, integrated into modules so students can apply techniques immediately.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns open‑text survey comments into prioritised actions. It tracks topics and sentiment over time for delivery of teaching in History, benchmarks against the sector, and drills down by cohort, site and year so teams can target changes where they will shift perception most. Concise, anonymised summaries and export‑ready outputs help programme teams and boards act quickly and evidence impact.
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 delivery of teaching:
More posts on history student views: