How did COVID-19 change sport and exercise sciences learning and research?
COVID-19 reshaped sport and exercise sciences by constraining practical learning, accelerating online delivery, and intensifying wellbeing needs; the student voice shows that the sector-wide COVID-19 topic in National Student Survey (NSS) open-text remains negative overall (index −24.0 from 12,355 comments, with younger cohorts generating 69.4% of the volume), while sport and exercise sciences within sport and exercise sciences retains a broadly positive baseline (57.2% Positive) but exposes a persistent assessment clarity gap, especially around marking criteria (−38.4). The NSS COVID-19 topic aggregates sector feedback about pandemic-era delivery and support; the sport and exercise sciences CAH lens enables subject-level comparisons that help explain where practice holds up and where it falters.
What does the evidence show and why does it matter?
The onset of COVID-19 posed substantive challenges across UK higher education. Sport and exercise sciences, highly reliant on labs and fieldwork, faced acute disruption and had to redesign delivery rapidly. Drawing on student surveys and text analysis, we evaluate how cohorts experienced the pivot, where institutions adapted well, and which changes should persist. With the COVID-19 topic skewing negative in the NSS, but this subject showing strong underlying sentiment about teaching quality and support, the key task is to stabilise practical learning and make assessment expectations unambiguous.
How did COVID-19 affect practical learning?
Practical activities like laboratory work and on-field training, essential for mastering techniques and applying theory, were disrupted. Staff reworked hands-on sessions for online or distanced delivery, complicating tacit, visually mediated skill development. Providers introduced virtual simulations, video demonstrations and more interactive digital content to sustain engagement. This demonstrates resilience but does not fully substitute in-person practice, so teams now analyse impacts on competency and calibrate when in-person teaching is required to meet learning outcomes. The strong student approval for delivery and teaching staff in this subject helps, but the negative COVID-19 tone among younger, full-time cohorts argues for structured catch-up labs and assured access windows to protect core skills.
How did teaching adapt online?
Programmes moved theoretical content online at pace, preserving continuity and widening flexible access, while practical skill development remained harder to replicate. Staff piloted tools to mimic physical interactions and curated asynchronous materials to support rehearsal and reflection. Student reactions vary: flexibility is valued, but many miss direct participation. With COVID-19 sentiment skewed by uncertainty, programmes now keep disruption-ready playbooks, a single source of truth for changes, and concise module-level updates to maintain trust in delivery.
What happened to mental health and wellbeing?
Remote study and reduced peer interaction increased stress, anxiety and isolation. The loss of structured physical activity weakened a routine that underpins wellbeing for this cohort. Institutions introduced online wellbeing programmes and virtual sport, which some students find helpful; others still need in-person community and activity. Given the more negative tone among younger students in COVID-19 feedback, teams prioritise timely check-ins, explicit disability-related adjustments when arrangements change, and visible, responsive personal tutoring.
How did access to facilities and equipment change?
Campus closures restricted access to specialist facilities and equipment central to learning and research. Virtual tours, equipment tutorials and remote data resources offered continuity but lacked the depth of direct use. Final-year students and those on research-intensive modules felt this most. Providers therefore schedule intensive on-campus blocks when restrictions ease, and map alternatives that still meet assessment briefs without diluting standards, maintaining a predictable timetable and clear communication to reduce friction.
How were research and projects affected?
Fieldwork and lab-based studies paused or were redesigned using simulations, online data collection and secondary datasets. This broadened reach in some cases but limited direct measurement of human kinetics and performance. Staff adjusted supervision, marking criteria and ethical approvals to reflect feasible methods while safeguarding rigour. The experience strengthens blended research design, with explicit guidance on acceptable substitutions and transparent standards to keep student expectations aligned.
What are the implications for future careers?
Students worry about disrupted sports sectors and fewer traditional roles, yet new opportunities in digital fitness, sports technology and health promotion expand. Programmes respond by integrating digital skills, data literacy, entrepreneurship and community health modules. Strong student sentiment about career support and staff availability in this subject translates into earlier, targeted guidance and employer-linked projects that sustain placement-style rhythms even when on-site options contract.
What did adaptation and resilience involve?
Staff and students iterated quickly, using live online sessions, interactive webinars and simulations to sustain momentum. These adaptations show that digital tools complement, but do not replace, in-person practice. Institutions now institutionalise the better elements: consistent assessment briefs and marking criteria, protected practical hours, and stable, well-communicated timetables. With sport and exercise sciences students broadly positive about teaching yet critical of opaque standards, programmes publish exemplars and task-specific rubrics to remove ambiguity and support fair, transparent marking.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics surfaces the patterns behind COVID-19 sentiment and sport and exercise sciences feedback. It tracks topic volume and tone over time, compares cohorts and providers, and highlights where timetabling, remote delivery and assessment clarity most affect NSS outcomes. Programme teams use concise, anonymised summaries and like-for-like CAH comparisons to target fixes—publishing clearer marking criteria, stabilising schedules and prioritising access to facilities—then monitor whether changes lift sentiment where it matters most.
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 COVID-19:
- How did COVID-19 reshape social work students’ learning?
- What did COVID-19 mean for business and management students?
- Did COVID-19 undermine UK biology students’ learning and wellbeing?
- How did COVID-19 reshape learning disabilities nursing students’ education?