Do student views of teaching staff improve construction education?

teaching staffbuilding

Yes. Across the National Student Survey (NSS), comments about the teaching staff theme are predominantly positive (78.3% positive), but the building subject code shows assessment clarity often constrains the experience: Feedback accounts for 10.6% of Building remarks with a negative tone (−12.2), students report marking criteria at −54.3, while availability of teaching staff is an asset at +47.3. In sector terms, the teaching staff theme captures open‑text judgements of staff expertise, communication and support across providers, and the Building code within the Common Aggregation Hierarchy benchmarks construction‑related programmes. This evidence points to a dual focus: protect staff responsiveness and strengthen assessment design and communication.

In the dynamic field of building and construction, the perceptions that students hold about teaching staff influence both learning and attainment. This post examines how students in building-related courses view staff performance, responsiveness and support, and how these views translate into practical enhancements to programme delivery. Using student surveys and text analysis, institutions can gather insights that inform a more supportive and effective learning environment for those starting out in construction and building studies.

What drives lecturer performance in construction?

Students tend to value lecturers who combine subject expertise with enthusiasm and engaging delivery. In applied, technical modules, they particularly respond to precise explanations, worked examples and opportunities to practise. Problems arise when delivery relies on lengthy monologues, when tone is disinterested, or when grading feels harsh without guidance. Routine pulse surveys help teams identify where to adjust delivery and provide exemplars and formative checkpoints that enable students to act on feedback.

What defines a strong course experience for building students?

Cohesive programmes blend theory with applied tasks and industry input. Students notice when teaching teams curate relevant casework and guest sessions that connect to assessment briefs. They also expect timely updates when plans change and a predictable weekly rhythm that supports project-based learning. Teaching teams that align module content to current practice and articulate learning outcomes across the programme maintain engagement and relevance.

How available and responsive should staff be?

Availability and responsiveness shape progress on technical assignments. Delayed replies or unclear contact routes slow projects and create avoidable friction. Providers should set visible expectations for office hours, response windows and escalation routes, and equip teams with shared FAQs and online Q&A summaries. Reliable communication makes students feel supported and helps staff triage queries efficiently.

How did COVID-19 reshape teaching practice?

The pivot to online delivery tested digital capability and pedagogy. In construction subjects, staff learned to keep engagement high through interactive sessions and consistent signposting. As blended models continue, students still value predictable structures, accessible materials and streamlined platforms. Teams benefit from lightweight peer review of digital sessions and periodic refreshers on platform use.

How can assessment and marking feel fair and transparent?

Concerns about fairness often signal missing or inconsistently applied criteria. Staff should publish student-facing rubrics, annotated exemplars and short calibration notes so that expectations are transparent. Feedback that shows what changed and why helps students act promptly. Regular dialogue in workshops and tutorials reduces anxiety and builds trust in marking standards across the teaching team.

Why does peer learning matter in construction?

Peer collaboration develops interpersonal and site‑ready coordination skills while deepening understanding through explanation and critique. Group projects, crits and design reviews create structured exchange that surfaces misconceptions early. Staff can scaffold these activities and use observations to target support where concepts or methods are not landing.

How should course content and delivery evolve?

Construction programmes benefit from iterative refresh to reflect regulation, methods and technology. Overreliance on static slides and one‑way delivery limits application. Interactive problem-solving, hands‑on workshops and design sprints bring content to life. Staff development that couples pedagogy with industry updates sustains relevance, while ongoing student feedback informs refinements to modules and assessment briefs.

What personalised support sustains student wellbeing?

Students juggle academic, financial and placement pressures. Personalised support—advising, disability adjustments, careers guidance and targeted study skills—helps them sustain momentum. Strong tutor relationships, accessible wellbeing services and clear referral pathways all matter. Keeping the student voice central ensures services meet real needs and remain visible across the year.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics turns open‑text feedback into priorities you can act on for construction programmes. It:

• Surfaces sentiment on Teaching Staff and assessment themes in Building, so you can protect strengths (e.g., staff availability) and fix friction (e.g., criteria clarity).
• Benchmarks against peer subjects using the Building CAH code and segmentations (mode, cohort, site) to target support where it shifts sentiment most.
• Provides concise summaries for programme and departmental briefings, with export‑ready outputs for quality boards and NSS action planning.

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:

• How do human geography students rate their teaching staff?
• What do students say about teaching staff in UK medical education?
• What do NSS comments tell us about teaching staff in business and management?
• What are students saying about teaching staff in social sciences?

More posts on building student views:

• What makes course content in building studies effective?