What do management students need from course and teaching communication?
They need a single, reliable channel for authoritative updates and unambiguous assessment information. Across the UK, the National Student Survey (NSS) open‑text theme on communication about course and teaching aggregates sector views on how information flows between programme teams and students; it records 6,214 comments with a sentiment index of −30.0, and full‑time respondents are more negative at −32.0. Within management studies, which groups business and management programmes for sector comparison, the sharpest communication pain points sit in assessment: Feedback carries a −18.1 tone and Marking criteria a −48.4, signalling that clarity, consistency and timing shape the experience as much as content.
What do students expect from course communications?
Students expect concise course aims, assessment briefs and changes to be communicated through a single source of truth, with time‑stamped updates and plain language. They want transparent teaching intentions and relevance, so they can align effort and plan work across modules. They also expect predictable rhythms for updates and deadlines to minimise last‑minute changes. Institutions model effective managerial practice when they provide a clear escalation route and realistic response times, reinforcing shared responsibility for staying informed without scattering information across multiple channels.
How should feedback and responsiveness work?
Students engage more when feedback arrives within visible service levels and explains how to improve against the marking criteria. In management programmes, the tone around Feedback and Marking criteria shows that ambiguous expectations undermine learning. Programme teams that calibrate markers, provide annotated exemplars and rubric‑style checklists, and invite quick clarification questions on feedback reports tend to remove friction and raise confidence. Responsiveness matters as much as tone: staff who acknowledge queries and indicate next steps help students prioritise action.
Which digital platforms actually help?
Digital tools help when they reduce effort, not add noise. A well‑organised learning management system that acts as the canonical hub for modules, with change logs that state what changed, why and when it takes effect, limits confusion. Short weekly summaries and consistent subject lines make it easier to scan and act. Personalising announcements where appropriate and signposting to people, not just pages, preserves the human element that students rate in management education.
Do students prefer in-person or online communication?
Both modes matter for different purposes. In‑person conversations support rapid clarification, relationship‑building and complex discussions, while online posts and recordings provide reference points students can revisit. Practical workshops and live case work often benefit from face‑to‑face interaction, whereas theoretical content sits well online. Setting expectations for how each mode will be used avoids duplication and reduces inbox volume.
How should programmes develop communication skills without losing real-world relevance?
Students value structured practice as well as theory. Workshops, presentations and group exercises should mirror workplace communication, with transparent criteria and briefings that simulate client or stakeholder requirements. Co‑designing activities with the student cohort, and updating cases and formats to reflect current practice, keeps skills development applied rather than abstract.
What barriers get in the way of effective communication?
Language, cultural styles and digital access all affect how messages land. Some students read direct messages as abrupt; others miss nuance in indirect phrasing. Disabled students often require advance notice and alternative formats as standard, not as an exception. Varied digital literacy can also limit engagement. Designing communications for accessibility and consistency reduces avoidable misunderstandings.
What should management studies programmes do next?
- Establish one authoritative channel for module and programme information, with time‑stamped updates and a short rationale for any change.
- Publish a predictable rhythm for announcements and response times, and minimise last‑minute shifts in timetabling and assessment.
- Make assessment expectations explicit using exemplars, marking guides and brief Q&A spaces linked to the assessment brief.
- Scaffold collaboration through clear task design, contribution tracking and routes to resolve issues in group work.
- Prioritise accessibility: structured headings, plain English, formats compatible with assistive technologies, and alternative formats by default.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics translates student comments into targeted actions for management programmes. It tracks how communication issues trend over time and by segment, so you can see where full‑time cohorts or specific modules need a different approach. You can drill from provider to school or programme to brief teams with concise evidence, compare like‑for‑like across subject areas and demographics, and export focused summaries for programme meetings and academic boards. For management studies, it highlights where assessment communications, timetabling and digital messaging reduce or increase friction, so course teams can prioritise the changes that shift student sentiment fastest.
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:
- What do biology students need from course and teaching communications?
- What improves communication in politics courses?
- What do human geography students need from communication and feedback?
- Are communication and course issues holding back music students?