Are placements working for counselling, psychotherapy and occupational therapy students?

By Student Voice Analytics

placements fieldwork trips counselling, psychotherapy and occupational therapy

Mostly, but unevenly. In National Student Survey (NSS) comments coded to placements fieldwork trips, 13,023 entries show 60.6% positive sentiment (index +23.1), yet allied health programmes account for 40.2% of placement comments and trend only +12.0. Within counselling, psychotherapy and occupational therapy, placements and fieldwork draw 16.8% of all feedback and carry a mildly negative tone (index −8.0), with scheduling frictions (4.5%, index −34.4) often driving the dip. The category synthesises student views on off-campus learning across UK higher education, while this discipline grouping in the Common Aggregation Hierarchy focuses on regulated, practice-based programmes; together they surface a practical agenda: lock in logistics early, communicate changes consistently, and guarantee supervision quality.

How does placement allocation shape learning and wellbeing?

Allocation timing and travel distance dominate anxiety. Late notification forces students to rework employment, caring, and commuting arrangements at short notice, which reduces engagement on site. Staff can reduce this by confirming site capacity before timetabling, publishing a simple “what changed and why” update each week, and declaring a rota freeze window ahead of each block. Because mode and life stage shape the experience, ring‑fence flexible options and clearer escalation for part‑time and apprenticeship students, and schedule proactive check‑ins for mature and Black students. Pre‑agree reasonable adjustments with providers and record them against allocations so support is in place on day one.

Do placement expectations match what students encounter?

Students expect structured opportunities to apply theory but often encounter busy settings, variable induction, and uneven access to supervision. During pandemic periods many navigated remote or hybrid arrangements that offered fewer interpersonal cues, which matter in therapeutic disciplines. Programmes can close the expectations gap by being explicit about site realities in the pre‑brief, clarifying learning outcomes for each block, and setting a predictable contact rhythm for on‑placement supervision. Where experiences deviate, capture issues quickly and show how they are resolved.

How should we prepare students for placements?

Preparation works best when it targets practice, not just logistics. Provide scenario‑based workshops tied to the assessment brief and marking criteria, and use annotated exemplars to show performance standards. Reduce first‑day ambiguity through a one‑page mentor brief and an onboarding checklist that covers access, scope of practice, reflective logs, and escalation routes. Use student surveys and text analysis to prioritise the techniques and contexts where confidence is lowest, then adjust the preparatory offer accordingly.

What is the role of blended learning in placements?

Blended delivery helps students balance learning with practice, but therapeutic skills rely on presence, pacing, and rapport that can be harder to build online. Hybrid models can work where virtual components are authentic (e.g. case formulation, reflective supervision) and are paired with short, intensive in‑person blocks for client‑facing work. Make the purpose of each mode explicit and ensure digital tasks connect directly to on‑site learning outcomes.

What support enables safe, effective placements?

Supervision and pastoral support shape outcomes as much as site quality. Students in this discipline rate Personal Tutors very positively (index +58.7), so use that strength: schedule structured check‑ins during each block and coordinate with placement mentors. Embed a rapid feedback loop for on‑placement concerns, and publish weekly closure themes to demonstrate follow‑through. Give mentors a concise brief that sets expectations on contact, feedback, and incident reporting so every student experiences a consistent baseline of support.

How should we organise practical learning and placement partnerships?

Design placements as part of the curriculum, not an add‑on. Align learning objectives with the scope of practice available at each site, and sequence exposure so students build complexity safely. Negotiate capacity and supervision commitments upfront, include safety and wellbeing in partner MOUs, and monitor environments actively. Use student evidence to refine the mix of settings, calibrate assessment to what students can reasonably evidence on site, and make adjustments visible to the cohort.

What is the path forward?

The evidence points to a delivery challenge rather than a pedagogic failure: placements motivate students, but allocation, scheduling, and communication disrupt the experience and depress sentiment. Addressing these operational levers, while standardising supervision and feedback, lifts both equity and outcomes. Institutions that publish predictable timelines, prepare mentors, and act visibly on placement feedback give students the conditions to translate theory into competent practice.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Tracks placement comments and sentiment continuously, with drill‑downs by mode, age, ethnicity, disability and subject group so you can see where allocation or support is uneven.
Benchmarks this discipline against allied health and the wider sector to evidence whether logistics fixes, supervision changes, or assessment clarifications are working.
Surfaces concise, anonymised summaries for placement partners and programme teams, with export‑ready tables for briefings and action planning.
Connects placement insights to adjacent frictions (timetabling, organisation, communications) so operational improvements land where students feel them most.

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and standards and NSS requirements.