Do psychology students benefit from clearer communication about course and teaching?
Yes. Across the sector, the communication about course and teaching strand of the National Student Survey (NSS) captures how reliably providers convey course and teaching information and is rated poorly by students overall (72.5% Negative; sentiment index −30.0). Psychology within psychology (non-specific) covers mainstream provision in the discipline and performs better on overall experience (53.1% Positive) but still sees recurrent confusion about how work is judged, particularly marking criteria (−45.0). Psychology programmes therefore benefit most from a single source of truth for updates, accessible assessment briefs with exemplars, and a predictable communication rhythm aligned with timetabling (+8.1), which together improve engagement and reduce avoidable anxiety.
Where do communication breakdowns occur in psychology teaching?
Student comments underline inconsistent module instructions, opaque evaluation critiques, and insufficient explanation of teaching approaches. For psychology, which demands precision in theory and application, such gaps compound. Analysing student feedback from surveys and text analytics surfaces the specific friction points and the cohorts most affected. Staff use this evidence to refine teaching messages and how programme details are communicated. Calibrated adjustments, rather than wholesale changes, improve the learning environment without adding noise.
How do we clarify course details and expectations?
Provide a single authoritative channel for course objectives, assessment briefs, marking criteria, and deadlines, with time‑stamped updates. Use plain language and structured headings, and ensure materials work with assistive technologies. Publish exemplars that map evidence to criteria, and explain what changed, why, and when it takes effect. In psychology, where assessment literacy matters, this approach helps students plan study effectively and reduces misunderstandings between theoretical components and applied tasks.
What channels make staff–student dialogue work?
Adopt a predictable rhythm for dialogue: short weekly summaries, regular feedback sessions embedded in the academic calendar, and clear response times. Use digital spaces for Q&A so students can surface issues and receive timely answers, and route complex queries through an explicit escalation path. Staff gain actionable insights from these interactions and can adjust teaching and communications accordingly. Keep tone and format accessible so all students can participate.
What support strengthens online learning for psychology?
Provide virtual labs, moderated discussion forums, and tidy, searchable repositories aligned with live teaching. These tools improve access to resources and enable rapid clarification of complex concepts. Ensure forums are monitored so misconceptions are corrected promptly, and integrate short formative checkpoints to sustain momentum for remote learners. Consistency between in‑person and online materials reduces duplication and cognitive load.
How should we handle timetabling and notifications?
Prioritise timely, accurate updates delivered via push notifications and email, anchored to the single source of truth. Use concise subject lines and state the effective date of changes. Where external partners affect scheduling, keep a visible changes log and avoid last‑minute shifts by maintaining a short no‑change window before assessments or intensive teaching blocks. This reduces disruption for students and administrative burden for staff.
How do we streamline assessment communications?
Make assessment clarity non‑negotiable. Publish annotated exemplars, checklists that show how evidence maps to marking criteria, and marking guides that illustrate progression. Calibrate standards across modules and commit to predictable turnaround times. Require feed‑forward in every response so students know what to do next, and invite quick follow‑ups via office hours or tutorials for clarification. Host all materials in a single, searchable repository.
Where do interactive methods add most value?
Workshops, case discussions and scenario analyses help students apply theory to practice. Integrate interactive tasks throughout modules, link them to assessment criteria, and use them to rehearse disciplinary judgement. This builds confidence, strengthens critical thinking, and supports transition into independent research and practice‑oriented contexts.
How should we involve students in programme decisions?
Create standing forums or committees where students co‑review module communications, assessment briefs, and term‑time rhythm. Involve them in testing templates for announcements and feedback. Run regular audits of communications to check clarity, consistency and timing, and share short findings back to the cohort so students see action on their input.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns open‑text survey comments into prioritised actions. It tracks this communications theme and psychology topics over time, segments results by mode, age, disability, ethnicity and subject, and lets teams drill from provider to school, department and programme. You can compare like‑for‑like across psychology and other subject groups, export concise insights for programme teams and academic boards, and monitor whether changes to assessment clarity, timetabling rhythm and digital materials move the dial for cohorts that need it most.
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 communication about course and teaching:
- Are communication and course issues holding back music students?
- Can fixing course communications lift computer science learning?
- Can better course communication and organisation improve business studies?
- Are communication and course structure working in teacher training?