Should creative writing students rate teaching staff highly?
Yes. In the National Student Survey (NSS), open‑text comments about Teaching Staff are strongly positive across the sector, with 78.3% positive and a sentiment index of +52.8. For creative writing, people‑centred strengths sit alongside sharper expectations around assessment clarity: roughly 55.6% of comments are positive, Feedback takes an 8.0% share, and sentiment for Marking criteria sits at −41.4. This shapes the story here: students praise expert, encouraging lecturers yet want explicit criteria, calibrated exemplars and reliable, responsive support.
Do knowledgeable, passionate lecturers change outcomes in creative writing?
Yes, because enthusiasm and subject expertise drive engagement and confidence. In humanities‑based programmes, students highlight tutors who model craft, show what quality looks like and facilitate ambitious drafting. Where energy or availability dips, participation and risk‑taking fall. Programme teams should prioritise visible high‑trust habits (predictable contact points, purposeful workshop design) and use ongoing student feedback to sustain teaching vitality through the year.
What does comprehensive support from staff look like?
Responsive, humane and predictable. Creative writing students value approachable tutors who combine craft guidance with wellbeing awareness and who act on the student voice. Staff who provide steady contact routes, clear weekly expectations and timely replies reduce uncertainty that otherwise distracts from practice. For mixed‑mode or commuting cohorts, out‑of‑hours options and succinct asynchronous updates help maintain momentum without over‑servicing.
Why does individualised attention and feedback matter most here?
Because progress depends on developing a distinctive voice against transparent standards. Students respond well to targeted, actionable comments linked to assessment briefs and marking criteria. Publishing annotated exemplars, using checklist‑style rubrics and closing the loop on how to apply feedback raises trust in marking and shortens the distance between draft and resubmission. Routine calibration across the teaching team keeps interpretations consistent.
How can staff balance creative freedom with academic rigour?
Set permissive boundaries. Use concise learning outcomes, explicit assessment briefs and consistent marking criteria to frame experimentation. Workshops and tutorials should challenge students to refine intent, structure and technique while keeping sight of the criteria by which work is judged. Staff judgement then feels like mentoring rather than gatekeeping.
How should staff support diverse writing styles?
Invite range and scaffold it. Offer opportunities to try form, voice and genre, pairing experimentation with short, structured activities that build technique. Peer‑review templates and genre‑specific exemplars help students translate feedback into revision, while keeping the classroom inclusive of different experiences and approaches.
How do staff build a community of writers?
Design collaboration that helps rather than hinders. Peer workshops, small groups and student‑led readings work best when roles, expectations and feedback norms are explicit. Staff should stay present but not dominating, so students own the space while knowing where to seek guidance. Where group dynamics strain, light scaffolding restores focus without constraining creativity.
Where are the pressure points and how do we improve?
Students signal three recurring frictions. First, assessment transparency: align feedback to criteria and show standards through exemplars. Second, resources and systems: reliable library access, straightforward digital submission and dependable seminar tools keep attention on writing rather than wayfinding. Third, delivery choices: explain when and why remote activities are used and keep timetabling changes in one reliable place. Pay attention to differential experiences across cohorts and demographics by checking sentiment at course level each term, reviewing consistency across teaching teams and publishing what changed in response.
What should programmes do next?
Protect the strong baseline on staff‑student relationships while tightening assessment clarity. Calibrate marking, show students what good looks like, and maintain predictable communications so creative practice can flourish. Monitor sentiment and close the loop with cohorts so improvements are visible and sustained.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
- Continuous visibility of Teaching Staff comments and sentiment over time, with drill‑downs from provider to creative writing cohorts.
- Like‑for‑like comparisons by subject family and student demographics, plus segmentation by mode, site and year of study.
- Concise, anonymised summaries for programme and departmental briefings, and export‑ready tables for quality boards.
- Evidence of change over time so you can show how feedback on assessment clarity, resources and delivery has been acted on.
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 teaching staff:
- What do sociology students think about teaching staff?
- What do journalism students say about teaching staff?
- What do pharmacy students say about their teaching staff?
- What are physiotherapy students saying about teaching staff?