Are human geography students getting enough contact time?
Mostly no. In the National Student Survey (NSS), the contact time comments from 2018–2025 skew negative, with 72.2% negative and a sentiment index of −26.8 across the sector; geography subjects sit slightly lower at −28.5. Within human geography, industrial action features prominently at around 8.1% of comments and is strongly negative (−61.8), amplifying concern about lost taught hours and uncertainty in assessment. The category distils how much, how reliably and how accessibly sessions run, while the subject view shows a discipline built on taught theory and field-based learning; together these insights frame the experiences reported below.
Where is contact time falling short?
Reduced and unreliable contact hours, exacerbated by staff strikes and the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, leave many students feeling disconnected. In a discussion‑heavy programme like human geography, fewer opportunities to quiz tutors and receive immediate feedback limit understanding of complex concepts. Online provision intended to bridge gaps often fails to replicate spontaneous exchanges and seminar debate. Departments that protect the timetable, minimise short‑notice changes, provide accessible alternatives when live contact cannot be guaranteed, and reschedule cancelled sessions quickly maintain momentum and reduce frustration.
How does contact time shape value for money perceptions?
Students judge value for money through the quality and reliability of taught time. When contact hours tighten, the perceived return on fees falls, particularly when online formats replace interactive seminars and practicals. For human geography cohorts, costs and value for money tend to trend among the most negative topics, so providers need to be explicit about what fees include, how lost sessions are replaced, and how fieldwork and skills development are funded and delivered.
What is the impact on learning?
Sparse contact complicates the organisation of coursework and assignments. Without frequent interaction, students second‑guess the assessment brief, marking criteria and expected depth of analysis, which dampens motivation and delays progress. Practical and applied learning is central to the subject; when dialogue and hands‑on sessions shrink, students miss formative checkpoints that would otherwise surface misconceptions. Assessment clarity becomes critical: exemplars, checklist‑style rubrics and predictable turnaround times sustain progress when live contact is constrained.
What does effective staff-student interaction look like now?
Students want accessible, predictable routes to staff. Standardising office hours, publishing availability in calendars, and keeping a single authoritative channel for course updates reduces avoidable anxiety. In human geography, students often speak positively about the people-facing elements, including teaching staff and personal tutoring; preserving these strengths requires visibility of staff availability and timely, actionable feedback.
What is distinct about contact time in human geography?
Fieldwork discussions, case study analysis and live debriefs are integral to how students learn and apply theory. Lost or compressed sessions have outsized effects because they unsettle preparatory work and follow‑up analysis. Students also notice sequencing: missed weeks and re‑arranged teaching can disrupt how modules build. Protecting fieldwork‑related contact, pre‑briefs and debriefs, and aligning assessment checkpoints with timetabled activity helps sustain coherence.
How is student life affected?
Less contact reduces community and increases isolation, with knock‑on effects for wellbeing and academic confidence. Students who cannot rely on timetabled access to staff and peers struggle to build networks and to resolve issues quickly. Targeted adjustments and predictable access routes matter for those who face additional barriers, and they help close participation and attainment gaps.
Would a reading week improve teaching quality?
A reading week can create a recovery window for focused study, fieldwork preparation, and feedback consolidation, especially after disrupted periods. Its benefit grows when paired with predictable access: visible office hours, a simple change log for timetabling, and fast replacement of cancelled sessions. Used alongside well-designed digital tools for dialogue and feedback, a reading week complements rather than replaces the value of live, interactive teaching.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Track contact time sentiment over time and drill into human geography cohorts by site, mode or demographic to target where reliability gaps are widest.
- Benchmark like for like against subject peers so programme and timetabling teams can prioritise modules with the largest short‑notice change patterns.
- Export concise, anonymised summaries with the specific fixes students ask for, so delivery teams can act quickly and demonstrate progress back to the cohort.
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and standards and NSS requirements.
More posts on contact time:
- Do art students get the contact time they need?
- Are history students satisfied with contact time?
- How can psychology programmes enhance students’ contact time?
- Is contact time working for adult nursing students?