Student Voice Analytics for Childhood and Youth Studies — UK student feedback 2018–2025
Scope. UK NSS open-text comments for Childhood and Youth Studies (CAH15-04-02) students across academic years 2018–2025.
Volume. ~1,628 comments; 96.2% successfully categorised to a single primary topic.
Overall mood. Roughly 54.2% Positive, 42.6% Negative, 3.2% Neutral (positive:negative ≈ 1.27:1).
What students are saying
The picture in Childhood and Youth Studies is people-centred and student‑support led. The single largest theme is Student support (10.3% share) and it is strongly positive on tone (sentiment index +25.8), comfortably above the sector average for this topic. Personal Tutor is also prominent (8.4%), but the tone is only mildly positive (index +2.8) and notably below sector, suggesting variability in contact quality, responsiveness or clarity of role.
Assessment & Feedback features heavily and splits into two stories. Feedback itself is a near‑neutral theme (9.4%, index −0.6) but is considerably less negative than the sector. By contrast, Marking criteria (4.2%, index −39.4) and Assessment methods (2.6%, index −23.8) are clear pain points when expectations and standards are hard to read. Where rubrics, exemplars and calibrated marking are visible, sentiment typically moves quickly in the right direction.
Operational delivery topics are present but, unusually, lean positive relative to sector. Remote learning (6.1%, index +11.6), Scheduling/timetabling (5.2%, +15.6), and Organisation & management of course (2.3%, +26.0) all read better than sector norms, pointing to generally reliable structures and communications. Where issues do arise, they cluster around “Communication about course and teaching” (1.4%, index −32.5), albeit at smaller volume.
Content and growth themes are a strength. Type and breadth of course content is warmly received (4.7%, +33.7), Learning resources are praised (4.2%, +30.4), and Personal development is a clear highlight (3.4%, +69.8). Students mention Placements/fieldwork far less than the sector (0.5% vs 3.4%), indicating that practical placement logistics are not the dominant feature of the narrative here. Low‑volume but sharp negatives include Costs / Value for money (0.4%, −72.8) and Strike Action (1.1%, −57.2).
Top categories by share (Childhood and Youth Studies vs sector):
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Student support | Academic support | 10.3 | 6.2 | 4.1 | 25.8 | 12.6 |
| Feedback | Assessment & feedback | 9.4 | 7.3 | 2.1 | -0.6 | 14.5 |
| Personal Tutor | Academic support | 8.4 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 2.8 | -15.8 |
| Remote learning | The teaching on my course | 6.1 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 11.6 | 20.6 |
| Scheduling/timetabling | Organisation & management | 5.2 | 2.9 | 2.3 | 15.6 | 32.1 |
| COVID-19 | Others | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.8 | -33.5 | -0.6 |
| Teaching Staff | The teaching on my course | 5.0 | 6.7 | -1.7 | 30.4 | -5.2 |
| Type and breadth of course content | Learning opportunities | 4.7 | 6.9 | -2.3 | 33.7 | 11.1 |
| Learning resources | Learning resources | 4.2 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 30.4 | 9.0 |
| Marking criteria | Assessment & feedback | 4.2 | 3.5 | 0.6 | -39.4 | 6.3 |
Most negative categories (share ≥ 2%)
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marking criteria | Assessment & feedback | 4.2 | 3.5 | 0.6 | -39.4 | 6.3 |
| COVID-19 | Others | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.8 | -33.5 | -0.6 |
| Assessment methods | Assessment & feedback | 2.6 | 3.0 | -0.4 | -23.8 | -0.1 |
| Communication with supervisor, lecturer, tutor | Academic support | 2.7 | 1.7 | 1.0 | -10.4 | -2.3 |
| Feedback | Assessment & feedback | 9.4 | 7.3 | 2.1 | -0.6 | 14.5 |
| Personal Tutor | Academic support | 8.4 | 3.2 | 5.3 | 2.8 | -15.8 |
| Module choice / variety | Learning opportunities | 2.0 | 4.2 | -2.1 | 6.1 | -11.3 |
Shares are the proportion of all Childhood and Youth Studies comments whose primary topic is the category. Sentiment index ranges from −100 (more negative than positive) to +100 (more positive than negative).
Most positive categories (share ≥ 2%)
| Category | Section | Share % | Sector % | Δ pp | Sentiment idx | Δ vs sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal development | Learning community | 3.4 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 69.8 | 10.0 |
| Type and breadth of course content | Learning opportunities | 4.7 | 6.9 | -2.3 | 33.7 | 11.1 |
| Teaching Staff | The teaching on my course | 5.0 | 6.7 | -1.7 | 30.4 | -5.2 |
| Learning resources | Learning resources | 4.2 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 30.4 | 9.0 |
| Availability of teaching staff | Academic support | 2.5 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 27.0 | -12.3 |
| Organisation, management of course | Organisation & management | 2.3 | 3.3 | -1.1 | 26.0 | 40.0 |
| Student support | Academic support | 10.3 | 6.2 | 4.1 | 25.8 | 12.6 |
What this means in practice
-
Make assessment clarity non‑negotiable. Publish annotated exemplars, checklist‑style rubrics and marking guides; run brief marker‑calibration activities; and commit to a realistic feedback SLA. These moves lift Feedback and reduce frustration around Marking criteria and Assessment methods.
-
Strengthen the Personal Tutor model. Standardise proactive check‑ins, clarify escalation routes, and provide simple “who to contact for what” guidance. This concentrates the current goodwill around Student support and lifts Personal Tutor tone closer to sector.
-
Consolidate operational good practice. Keep a single source of truth for changes, timetable early and clearly, and maintain the quality baseline for remote/hybrid sessions. This protects the current advantage on Remote learning and Scheduling/timetabling and sustains positive sentiment in Organisation & management.
-
Close the loop visibly. Where “Communication about course and teaching” or “Student voice” are raised, show the you said/we did chain and invite quick feedback on whether the fix landed. Low volume issues like Value for money can be addressed by making costs, inclusions and available resources more transparent.
Data at a glance (2018–2025)
- Top topics by share: Student support (≈10.3%), Feedback (≈9.4%), Personal Tutor (≈8.4%), Remote learning (≈6.1%), Scheduling/timetabling (≈5.2%), Teaching Staff (≈5.0%).
- Cluster view:
- Delivery & ops cluster (placements, timetabling, organisation, comms, remote): ≈15.5% of all comments.
- People & growth cluster (personal tutor, student support, teaching staff, availability of staff, delivery, personal development, student life): ≈37.0%.
- Over/under vs sector:
- Over‑indexed: Personal Tutor (+5.3 pp), Student support (+4.1 pp), Remote learning (+2.6 pp), Feedback (+2.1 pp), Scheduling/timetabling (+2.3 pp).
- Under‑indexed: Placements/fieldwork (−2.9 pp), Module choice/variety (−2.1 pp), Teaching Staff (−1.7 pp), Students’ Unions (−1.0 pp), Library (−0.5 pp).
- How to read the numbers. Each comment is assigned one primary topic; share is that topic’s proportion of all comments. Sentiment is calculated per sentence and summarised as an index from −100 (more negative than positive) to +100 (more positive than negative), then averaged at category level.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns open‑text survey data into clear, prioritised actions. It tracks topics, sentiment and movement by year so you can see where to focus effort across the whole institution and at fine‑grained levels (faculty, school, department, programme).
You get concise, anonymised theme summaries and representative comments for partners and programme teams, plus like‑for‑like sector comparisons across CAH codes and demographics (e.g., year of study, domicile, mode, campus/site, commuter status). Segment by site/provider, cohort and year to target interventions precisely, then export and share web/deck/dashboard outputs to evidence progress.
