Did COVID-19 undermine UK biology students’ learning and wellbeing?
Yes. Student feedback shows a depressed learning and wellbeing experience for UK biology students during the pandemic. In the National Student Survey (NSS) open-text corpus, our COVID-19 topic carries a strongly negative tone (index −24.0 across 12,355 comments). Within biology (non-specific), ≈2,910 comments indicate a more positive baseline overall, but assessment clarity is the pinch-point: Marking criteria is the lowest-rated subtopic (−45.4), while placements and fieldwork remain a strength (+30.6) that students want protected. These patterns shape what worked, what did not, and what to retain.
How did COVID-19 change teaching for biology students?
Online delivery sustained continuity but reduced interaction and cut lab and fieldwork. Reliance on recycled lectures dulled engagement. Departments now keep disruption-ready playbooks: a single source of truth for changes, a short “what changed and why” digest, and rapid switches to live, small-group teaching where possible. Text analysis of student voice helps target modules for redesign, with staff prioritising activities that simulate lab decision-making and collaborative inquiry to preserve practical reasoning even when access to facilities is constrained.
What did the shift online do to mental health, and how should support work?
Isolation and workload shocks increased anxiety. Younger and full-time cohorts typically report the most negative tone, and disabled students are slightly more negative than peers, so providers target proactive check-ins and make disability-related adjustments explicit when arrangements change. Staff maintain predictable contact, provide flexibility on assessment briefs and deadlines, and embed wellbeing signposting in module spaces rather than relying only on central services.
Did fees match the quality of education during COVID-19?
Students questioned value for money when lectures were reused and practical learning was curtailed while fees stayed static. Biology cohorts felt the loss of hands-on teaching acutely. Programmes mitigate by publishing what changed and why, restoring live teaching wherever viable, and scheduling lab-intensive catch-up windows to rebalance practical skills acquisition. Providers also pilot remote alternatives with clear learning outcomes and assessment criteria to evidence equivalence.
How were placements and fieldwork disrupted, and what mitigations help?
Lockdowns halted placements and fieldwork, disrupting skill development and graduate readiness. Given that biology placements typically carry positive sentiment and value (+30.6), programmes protect them by front-loading safety training, using virtual pre-labs to prepare students, and arranging micro-placements or project-based field alternatives when travel is restricted. Structured, work-integrated rhythms reduce uncertainty and keep students connected to practice.
Where did universities fall short in their COVID-19 response?
Some providers lacked a coherent, student-centred response—limited consideration of living circumstances, support needs, and the demands of practical disciplines made adaptation harder. Institutions address this by naming a single owner for timetabling, publishing a stable change log, and codifying continuity of learning practices from disciplines that sustained momentum. Staff then use student comments to prioritise fixes that reduce friction in access to labs, equipment and assessment clarity.
How were practical skills and lab work affected?
The sudden loss of hands-on lab time risks skill gaps. Virtual labs enable conceptual learning but cannot replicate tactile experience, peer collaboration, or lab etiquette. Programmes therefore blend virtual preparation with intensive in-person practicals when permitted, extend term-time lab access, and run focused skills bootcamps. Assessment design shifts to annotated exemplars and checklist-style rubrics so students know precisely how performance is judged when practical exposure is uneven.
Which supports and coping strategies actually helped?
Online study groups, routine-setting and regular staff check-ins helped students manage isolation. Programme teams that issued timely micro-briefings, kept assessment windows predictable, and made adjustments explicit saw fewer escalations. Staff availability and empathy matter; they reassure cohorts while reinforcing academic standards and giving students practical routes to succeed.
What adaptability should we keep?
Retain live, interactive teaching, with short recordings used as revision rather than as substitutes. Keep visible staff availability and predictable feedback turnaround. Above all, tackle assessment clarity head-on—students respond when programmes publish annotated exemplars, transparent marking criteria and realistic service levels for feedback. Protect placements and fieldwork by planning early, communicating contingencies, and using pre-lab preparation to maximise time on task when facilities are available.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Track COVID-19 topic volume and sentiment over time, then drill down to biology cohorts at institution, school and programme levels.
- Compare like-for-like across CAH groups and demographics (age, domicile, mode, commuter status), so you can target support where sentiment lags.
- Generate concise, anonymised summaries for programme and quality teams, highlighting assessment clarity, timetabling and placement access.
- Export tables and figures for rapid briefing, and evidence what changed and where as you implement and evaluate fixes.
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 COVID-19:
- Social work students' perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic
- Mathematics students' perspectives on COVID-19
- Anatomy, physiology, and pathology students' perspectives on COVID-19
- The challenges faced by psychology students during the pandemic