Did the pandemic reshape psychology students’ learning and wellbeing?
By Student Voice Analytics
COVID-19psychology (non-specific)Yes. National Student Survey (NSS) open-text evidence shows the COVID-19 topic remains net negative (sentiment index −24.0), with younger students driving much of the volume (69.4%). Within the Common Aggregation Hierarchy for psychology (non-specific), which groups UK psychology provision for sector analysis, the COVID-19 tone for psychology aligns with this pattern and amplifies long‑standing friction around assessment clarity. Psychology’s voice within the COVID-19 topic is proportionate (6.1%), while across 2018–2025 the subject contributes ≈23,488 comments overall. Strengths cluster around staff and resources; pressure points are assessment methods and, most notably, marking criteria (−45.0). These insights frame how programmes adapt delivery, placements, wellbeing support and research activity.
How did the shift to online learning change psychology teaching?
Providers moved rapidly from physical classrooms to virtual environments and modified pedagogy to suit the medium. Psychology relies on interaction and practical engagement, so role-plays and group work required redesign. Institutions equipped staff for online delivery, maintained student engagement, and expanded access to digital libraries and resources. Student tone around remote learning in psychology tends to sit close to neutral when materials align with live teaching and are tidy and searchable. The sector’s commitment to standards sustained educational quality and accelerated blended approaches that now underpin delivery.
What happened to practical components?
Practical components, especially clinical observation and client-facing practice, were disrupted. Programmes replaced or augmented in‑person activity with virtual simulations and structured online case work to protect learning outcomes. Student feedback prompted iterative improvements to these alternatives, and many teams now retain blended formats that extend access while safeguarding the integrity of practical training.
What mental health challenges emerged?
Wellbeing moved centre stage as students managed isolation, uncertainty and intensive engagement with emotionally demanding content. Younger and full‑time cohorts tended to report more critical experiences, so teams prioritised targeted communications, early contact and flexible support. Online counselling expanded, and routine check‑ins were embedded in modules and with personal tutors, normalising help‑seeking and enabling earlier intervention.
How did students adapt research projects?
Students and supervisors re‑tooled methods to meet safety and ethical requirements. Face‑to‑face studies shifted to online surveys and virtual interviews, with protocols adapted for consent, privacy and data quality. Staff provided exemplars and troubleshooting sessions, helping students keep research rigorous and feasible. The experience widened methodological repertoires and strengthened competency with digital tools now common across the discipline.
How did assessment and feedback change?
Assessment moved towards continuous and open‑book formats. Students consistently asked for precision about what good looks like and how work is judged, reflecting psychology’s pattern of tension around assessment methods and marking criteria. Programmes responded by publishing clearer assessment briefs, aligning marking criteria across modules, sharing annotated exemplars and committing to predictable turnaround with feed‑forward so students know what to do next. Regular virtual office hours supported quick clarification.
How did students access resources?
Access to libraries and specialist materials shifted online at pace. Providers consolidated a single source of truth for changes to timetabling, assessment and resources, and expanded e‑collections and open educational resources. Staff offered guidance on effective use of digital repositories and study skills for online environments. The result is a more equitable baseline for access and stronger digital literacy across cohorts.
What should providers do next?
Maintain a disruption‑ready playbook that covers teaching, assessment and access to resources. Target communications and flexible access routes where tone is most critical for student groups. Continue calibrating standards and sharing exemplars to reduce ambiguity in assessment. Protect positives—staff availability, learning resources, and tidy remote materials—and sustain blended options for practical learning and research that proved effective.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics surfaces what matters most for psychology during and beyond COVID-19 by tracking topic volume and sentiment over time, from institution to programme. It benchmarks psychology against the wider subject mix, highlights where younger and full‑time cohorts read more negative, and pinpoints assessment clarity issues so teams can act on marking criteria and feedback usefulness. You can segment by cohort or site, generate concise, anonymised summaries, and export ready‑to‑use tables and figures to brief programme, quality and wellbeing teams.
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:
More posts on psychology (non-specific) student views: