Should teaching approaches adapt for combined studies students?

teaching staffcombined, general or negotiated studies

Yes. Across the Teaching Staff category of the National Student Survey (NSS), students are highly positive overall (78.3% positive), but those on combined, general or negotiated studies report a more uneven experience that depends on staff to make programme flexibility work. In this subject area, students rate Teaching Staff strongly (+36.7) and notice predictability in timetabling (+18.4), yet assessment clarity often falters (marking criteria −41.9); with only 53.9% positive sentiment overall, the most effective staff approaches are both consistent and tailored to individual pathways. The category aggregates multi‑year NSS comments on staff behaviours across UK providers, while the subject grouping spans flexible, interdisciplinary degrees where structure varies. These sector patterns frame how teaching teams can refine practice for this cohort.

Students enrolled in combined, general, or negotiated studies in UK universities face unique educational paths that necessitate distinct approaches from teaching staff. These programmes allow students to craft their own academic journeys, engaging with a broad curriculum tailored to their interests and career goals. However, this flexibility often introduces complex challenges in how staff engage with and support these students. Feedback gathered through student surveys and text analysis reveals a mixed landscape: on one hand, students value staff who are adaptable and engaging, effectively supporting diverse needs; conversely, there are concerns over inconsistencies in tutorial support and feedback that can hinder student progression. This illustrates a pressing need for staff to evaluate teaching methods and interactions to ensure they meet the wide-ranging needs of their students. Ongoing engagement with student comments provides indicators of where to sharpen assessment clarity, simplify communications, and maintain predictable support.

How do tailored tutorials and feedback drive progression in combined studies?

Tailored tutorials and actionable feedback lift engagement and progression in combined, general, or negotiated studies. These programmes require a personalised approach to learning, so staff who adapt teaching styles and materials to diverse needs tend to unlock better outcomes. Personalised feedback helps students understand strengths and areas for development, particularly where learning paths are self-directed. When teaching teams provide bespoke tutorials and specific, usable feedback, students manage complex combinations more effectively and report greater confidence in their academic decisions. Institutions should prioritise training and time for staff to offer targeted tutorials, use exemplars, and frame feedback against the assessment brief and marking criteria to make next steps straightforward.

How can we address assessment inconsistencies across modules?

Inconsistencies in assessment design and expectations across modules undermine perceptions of fairness and can depress motivation. Calibrating briefs and criteria across a programme, while allowing for method variation, reduces noise for students mixing disciplines. Staff can publish annotated exemplars, use checklist-style rubrics, and run short calibration/Q&A sessions ahead of submissions. These moves clarify standards without diluting academic rigour and make feedback more actionable across different modules.

How do approachability and accessibility shape outcomes?

Students respond to staff who are available and who communicate predictably. Where staff maintain visible habits—regular office hours, prompt replies, and short weekly “what to expect” updates—students feel supported and better able to navigate options. Conversely, variable availability creates friction in a context where guidance often needs to be timely and contextualised. Programme leaders should set simple service standards across teaching teams, align tone and expectations in outward communications, and check consistency through quick pulse feedback after key teaching moments.

What builds a supportive community for dispersed cohorts?

Feelings of isolation are common when cohorts study across multiple subjects. Interdisciplinary small groups, co‑taught seminars, and structured peer mentoring increase belonging and make it easier to find the right point of contact. To ensure group work feels fair and productive, specify roles, milestones and peer‑assessment mechanisms so individual effort is visible. Regular meet‑ups and student‑led fora help staff surface issues early and adapt support swiftly.

How can tutors manage subject-specific support across varied combinations?

Tutor expertise does not always map neatly onto every student’s combination. A triage model helps: route specialist questions to the right academic, maintain a single source of truth for module expectations, and provide quick-reference guides to core concepts students encounter outside staff specialisms. Targeted professional development, including cross‑discipline micro‑briefings and shadowing, improves confidence and alignment. Termly forums where students flag emerging needs enable teams to adjust support as combinations evolve.

What mitigations sustain learning during external disruptions?

In flexible programmes, external disruptions such as industrial action or site closures can fragment learning quickly. A single source of truth for updates, virtual classrooms as a default fallback, and pre‑agreed adaptations to assessments protect continuity. Staff should share contingency plans early, invite student input on priority sessions to reschedule, and provide asynchronous routes for those studying across sites or modes.

What should providers do next?

• Standardise assessment expectations across modules and publish exemplars; make feedback directly actionable.
• Protect the strong baseline for teaching interactions by setting visible service standards and predictable contact points.
• Maintain scheduling discipline and clear ownership of communications so students know who to ask and when.
• Structure group work and community‑building activities to reduce isolation and increase accountability.
• Review sentiment by cohort and segment each term, close the loop with students on changes, and monitor consistency across teaching teams.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics gives continuous visibility of student sentiment on Teaching Staff and combined studies, with drill‑downs from provider to subject family and cohort. It surfaces priorities such as assessment clarity, scheduling and communications, and the usefulness of feedback, and enables like‑for‑like comparisons against relevant peer groups. Teams can generate concise, anonymised summaries for programme and departmental briefings and export tables for quality boards, so actions are evidence‑based and easy to share.

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.

Book a demo Prefer email? [email protected]

More posts on teaching staff:

• What do marketing students say about teaching staff?
• What do Nutrition and Dietetics students say about teaching staff?
• What do education students value in teaching staff?
• What do sport and exercise sciences students say about teaching staff?

More posts on combined, general or negotiated studies student views:

• Are personal tutors working for combined honours and flexible students?
• What support works for students in combined, general or negotiated studies?