What do art, architecture and design students say about their teaching staff?

teaching staffhistory of art, architecture and design

Students in history of art, architecture and design report strong relationships with their lecturers, with National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text comments showing 78.3% positive sentiment about Teaching Staff and a +52.8 sentiment index across the sector. Within History of Art, Architecture and Design (/cah3/history-of-art-architecture-and-design), the quality of the people teaching the course is especially prominent in student comments (10.0% by share), while disruption and assessment clarity remain the main dampeners. This frames the analysis below: protect the high‑trust behaviours that drive satisfaction, and tackle the predictable pinch points around disruption, communication and assessment design.

This post evaluates the diverse experiences and perspectives of students studying history of art, architecture, and design regarding their teaching staff. It takes a look at the specific academic needs and challenges in these fields, exploring how they shape student satisfaction. Teaching staff in these disciplines shape educational experiences that are both transformative and responsive to student needs. Their engagement matters for absorbing complex theoretical content and developing practical skills. Feedback mechanisms such as student surveys and text analysis allow staff to refine teaching based on direct student input, supporting a more tailored approach. By integrating the student voice, teaching teams adjust methods and content delivery to align with cohort requirements and interests, fostering a collaborative learning environment.

How do engagement and communication shape learning in art, architecture and design?

Communication quality predicts engagement. Transparent explanations, structured updates and consistent availability demystify theoretical material and maintain motivation. When interaction falters, students report confusion and disengagement. Given the sector’s strong baseline for teaching staff, teams should keep visible habits that sustain trust: predictable office hours, timely replies, and short “what to expect this week” notes on the VLE. Frequent micro‑interactions—quick Q&A summaries after lectures, short formative checkpoints—bridge understanding and create space for students to surface challenges early.

Do students see staff expertise as current and credible?

Students value deep disciplinary knowledge, but they also expect staff to connect scholarship with contemporary practice and methods. In this discipline, the intellectual shape of the curriculum—type and breadth of content and module variety—features positively in comments. Departments sustain credibility by prioritising ongoing professional development, active research engagement, and periodic refreshes of reading lists and exemplars. Bringing current debates and technologies into seminars and studios complements historical analysis and strengthens preparedness for graduate destinations.

How can assessment and feedback feel consistent and actionable?

Clarity and timeliness drive confidence. In this discipline, comments about marking criteria are consistently negative (−49.4), pointing to ambiguity about what “good” looks like. Tighten rubric language, publish annotated exemplars, and align brief, marking criteria and feedback phrases. Set a feedback service level that students can see and track, and use short mid‑project guidance checkpoints so students can act on advice before final submission. Use moderated peer review to calibrate standards and reduce idiosyncratic marking.

What is the impact of strikes and staff turnover?

Industrial action disrupts continuity in studio‑based and iterative projects, and students here talk about it more and more negatively than average, with a strongly negative tone (−66.2). Loss of continuity also arises from staff turnover, which can interrupt mentorship and programme coherence. When disruption occurs, publish mitigation plans early, explain trade‑offs plainly, and centralise updates so students do not need to chase information across channels. Capture questions in one place and track responses to reduce uncertainty.

How do course organisation and accessibility affect outcomes?

Organisation amplifies or undermines learning. A tidy syllabus, aligned assessment briefs and accessible resources reduce cognitive load. Students in this discipline often comment on course communications and timetabling when they slip; a single authoritative channel for updates, weekly summaries of changes, and named owners for module‑level information reduce friction. Ensure digital materials meet accessibility standards and that high‑demand resources are easy to obtain through the library or digital alternatives.

What supports sustain teaching quality during challenging times?

Staff wellbeing and collegial practice underpin student experience. Departments that provide access to mental health resources, manageable workload planning, and peer‑observation routes maintain quality through pressure. Open, solutions‑focused dialogue in school meetings helps teaching teams share fixes that students feel quickly: pre‑scheduled drop‑ins during assessment windows, streamlined routes to technical support, and coordinated messaging across modules.

What should institutions do next?

• Prioritise assessment clarity. Publish annotated exemplars, tighten rubric language, and set a visible feedback turnaround with mid‑project checkpoints so students can action advice.
• Stabilise operational rhythm. Use one authoritative channel for course communications, summarise changes weekly, and name owners for timetabling and module‑level updates.
• Protect the baseline. Keep high‑trust behaviours visible to sustain the strong overall tone for teaching staff; make office hours, response windows and “week ahead” updates predictable.
• Monitor equity and consistency. Track sentiment by cohort and module, review outliers monthly, and close the loop with students on what changed.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• Continuous visibility of Teaching Staff comments and sentiment over time, with drill‑downs from provider to school and cohort in this discipline.
• Like‑for‑like comparisons across History of Art, Architecture and Design and the wider sector, plus segmentation by mode, year of study and site/campus.
• Concise, anonymised summaries and export‑ready tables that brief programme and departmental boards on priorities, progress and impact.
• Practical prompts that turn open‑text into action: surface assessment clarity risks, flag communication gaps, and evidence where staff behaviours protect the baseline.

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 are physiotherapy students saying about teaching staff?
• Do student views of teaching staff improve construction education?
• What do CAM students say about their teaching staff?
• What do sport and exercise sciences students say about teaching staff?

More posts on history of art, architecture and design student views:

• Are grading standards in History of Art, Architecture and Design clear and consistent?
• Are learning resources working for art and design students?
• What is student life like for history of art, architecture and design students?
• What support works for students in history of art, architecture and design?