What are students saying about teaching staff in social sciences?

teaching staffsocial sciences (non-specific)

Across the National Student Survey (NSS), students describe teaching staff very positively: 78.3% Positive and a sentiment index of +52.8. In the Common Aggregation Hierarchy, the social sciences grouping social sciences (non-specific) shows a familiar pattern: strong regard for people and support, but calls for steadier online delivery and explicit assessment expectations. Remote learning trends negative (−10.2), marking criteria is a marked pain point (−36.9), while the learning resources offer is viewed positively (+26.6). These signals set the priorities for teaching teams in this discipline.

How do resources shape effective teaching in social sciences?

Learning resources underpin effective teaching and are one of the more warmly viewed elements in social sciences (+26.6). Staff need dependable access to libraries, datasets and journals, and the capability to curate these for diverse cohorts. As digital platforms expand access, institutions should ensure assistive tools, consistent VLE layouts and targeted training so staff can use text and data analysis software confidently. This maintains equity of access and helps students apply material in modules and dissertations.

How should we strengthen research methodology training?

Methodology training sets the standard for the whole programme. Consistent coverage of qualitative and quantitative approaches, anchored by worked examples, improves student confidence and research quality. Regular workshops, peer feedback on study designs and short pulse surveys give timely evidence on where students need more support. Teams should align assessment briefs and marking criteria with taught methods and publish exemplars so expectations are unmissable.

What enables genuine interdisciplinarity?

Interdisciplinary teaching works when staff coordinate around shared learning outcomes and compatible terminology. Cross‑department planning, common assessment rubrics and co‑taught sessions help students translate methods between fields. Structured collaboration time and light‑touch governance keep modules coherent without suppressing disciplinary strengths.

How do we balance theory and practice?

Students value explicit connections between theory and its application. Use contemporary case studies, short simulations and practitioner input to test concepts in realistic contexts, then loop insights back into seminars and assessment briefs. Even where placements or fieldwork are less central, authentic tasks and datasets give students the applied edge they expect.

How do we grow critical thinking and analytical skills?

Design activities that require evaluation and judgement, not just recall. Case analysis, structured debates and peer review cultivate higher‑order reasoning. To reduce anxiety and noise around assessment, make marking criteria transparent, provide annotated exemplars and align seminar tasks to the marking grid. Continuous, low‑stakes checks of understanding help staff see whether students can act on feedback.

What digital literacy and technological skills matter now?

Students’ frustrations with online delivery highlight the need for consistent digital practice. Use a single source of truth for materials, predictable weekly guidance, and accessible recordings with clear audio and slides. Ongoing CPD and mentoring ensure all staff can deliver high‑quality online sessions, host remote consultations effectively and select tools that support learning rather than distract from it.

How do we connect programmes to career pathways and employability?

Staff should integrate career development into modules through skills mapping, employer‑informed tasks and reflective assignments. Programme teams can coordinate internships, micro‑placements and alumni mentoring to bridge from classroom to workplace. Use careers data to target workshops and connect students to sector‑specific opportunities.

What sustains staff mental health and wellbeing?

Workload, research pressure and complex teaching demands require institutional support. Ready access to counselling, wellbeing workshops and confidential advice, backed by fair timetabling and coordinated assessment deadlines across modules, protects staff resilience. Healthy teams sustain high‑quality interactions that students repeatedly praise in social sciences.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics monitors open‑text feedback so you can see where students value staff interactions and where delivery or assessment clarity needs attention. It tracks sentiment for teaching staff over time and benchmarks your social sciences programmes against comparable subjects and cohorts. You can drill down to module or year group, compare by mode or site, and export concise summaries for programme boards, departmental meetings and TEF or 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:

• What are physiotherapy students saying about teaching staff?
• Do midwifery students view teaching staff positively?
• What do mechanical engineering students say about teaching staff?
• Are drama students positive about their teaching staff, and what should departments prioritise?

More posts on social sciences (non-specific) student views:

• Should social science students embrace remote learning?