What do NSS comments tell us about teaching staff in business and management?
Students describe teaching staff as supportive overall but ask for sharper assessment design, quicker-to-use feedback and better‑structured collaboration. In National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text comments for teaching staff across UK providers, 78.3% are positive; in business and management (non-specific) the tone sits lower at +46.4. Within this subject area, Feedback attracts the largest share of comments at 10.6%, Marking criteria is strongly negative (−46.5), and Student support is distinctly positive (+20.6). These patterns point programmes towards predictable staff contact, transparent criteria, annotated exemplars and feedback that students can act on without delay. The first metric reflects the NSS theme covering student views on staff interactions; the second reflects the sector‑wide subject mapping used to aggregate non‑specific business and management programmes.
Teaching Staff Quality — how does it shape outcomes?
Teaching quality drives engagement and satisfaction when staff combine engaging delivery with responsive, actionable feedback. The baseline tone for teaching across the sector is strong, but business and management sits below it, so teams benefit from making high‑trust behaviours visible: predictable response times, routine office hours, and weekly “what to expect” updates. Light‑touch text analysis of student comments helps staff track segment differences and close the loop quickly on what changed.
Course Content and Curriculum — how should design connect with contemporary practice?
Relevance and structure matter most when they translate complex ideas into applied tasks students can attempt and iterate. Staff should prioritise worked exemplars and step‑by‑step explanations in quantitatively heavy modules, calibrate delivery across teaching teams, and use student feedback to refine sequencing. Cross‑staff collaboration improves coherence and helps students see how theory, data and practice align throughout the programme.
Support Services and Resources — which matter most, and how should staff signpost them?
Students value accessible academic and wellbeing support, and they notice when signposting is inconsistent. Programme teams should make Personal Tutor practices visible and consistent, and keep a single source of truth for core information. Because learning resources draw high interest in this subject area, quick checks on access, availability and reliability (including digital) help target fixes with the greatest impact.
Assessment and Grading — how should they be designed to build trust?
Assessment clarity underpins trust. Students want to know what “good” looks like and how to improve. Given the prominence of Feedback (10.6%) and weak tone on Marking criteria (−46.5), teams should publish annotated exemplars aligned to the assessment brief, use checklist‑style rubrics, calibrate marking across tutors, and provide concise “how to improve” notes. Timely, substantive feedback supports students to act before the next submission.
Student Experience Beyond Academics — what matters for business and management cohorts?
A sense of belonging grows when staff create interactive learning, host networking and industry sessions, and involve students in shaping enhancements. Where collaboration causes friction, clarify group formation, roles and contribution tracking, and make the aims of peer interaction explicit in briefs and marking criteria.
Interactive Learning Environments — why do they matter, and how should staff use them?
Students respond well to active, applied learning supported by reliable digital tools. Blend workshops, simulations and asynchronous forums so part‑time and commuting students can participate on equal terms. Maintain a robust dialogue in these spaces and adapt teaching strategies as patterns in feedback emerge.
Concluding Thoughts and Recommendations — what should institutions do now?
Prioritise assessment clarity, predictable staff contact and consistent signposting. Monitor sentiment by subject and cohort, check interaction consistency across teaching teams, and use quick pulse feedback after major teaching moments. Protect operational strengths (organisation and timetabling) while focusing improvement effort on assessment design, resource reliability and collaboration experience.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Continuous visibility of comments and sentiment on teaching staff in business and management, from institution to programme level, with drill‑downs by cohort.
- Like‑for‑like comparisons across the subject mapping and by demographics (e.g., mode, campus/site, year of study), so you evidence improvement against the right peer group.
- Concise, anonymised summaries for programme and departmental briefings, plus export‑ready outputs for quality boards and committees.
Book a Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and standards and NSS requirements.
More posts on teaching staff:
- What do students say about teaching quality in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry?
- Do teaching staff drive engagement in language teaching?
- What do electrical and electronic engineering students say about their teaching staff?
- How do teacher training students rate their university teaching staff?
More posts on business and management (non-specific) student views:
- Does embedding personal development in business and management studies improve student outcomes?
- Does the breadth of UK business and management courses match what students say they need?
- How can student voice improve Business and Management programmes?
- Does location change business and management students’ experience?