Students’ expectations at the beginning of the semester, their teaching and material preferences, and their views on assessment have been combined at faculty level.

Highest expectations: Clear and understandable learning (89.4%) and contribution to professional life (88.8%). The most frequently preferred teaching method is presentation supported by slides and visuals (71.9%). Slides are the most preferred materials (67.7%), followed by course notes (67.0%).

These findings reflect expectations; they do not measure satisfaction, achievement or instructor performance. The number of response records is not the number of unique students.

The source survey file contains 3,137 response records. The 12 records previously designated for removal following data checks were excluded, leaving 3,125 responses for analysis. Data cut-off: 13 October 2026. All responses were combined without separating courses or instructors. Semester distributions reflect students’ reported selections; six records indicate the spring semester. In multiple-selection questions, repeated options within a record were counted once. Free-text reasons for taking a course were grouped under Other responses.

Counts refer to response records rather than unique students. A student may have completed the survey for several courses; the findings should therefore not be interpreted as a faculty estimate in which each student has equal weight. Courses contribute to the overall distribution in proportion to their response counts. The proportion of respondents relative to the total student population was not calculated.

Percentages were calculated using the valid response count for each question. In multiple-selection questions, options were counted separately, so percentages may exceed 100% in total. Likert means were calculated on a 1–5 scale. Blank responses were not treated as zero. The findings reflect student expectations; they do not measure learning achievement, satisfaction or instructor performance.

Scale: 1 Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Undecided, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly agree. Charts present response percentages.

Each statement has 3,125 valid responses. Means are on a 1–5 scale.

No result was calculated for the class participation item because no responses were recorded. The chart shows the percentage of “Suitable” responses in the source file.

The open-ended field received 881 responses; 2,244 records were left blank. All responses in the current file were reread and classified by meaning using AI assistance. All responses were recoded using the 10-theme framework from the previous report. Variations in spelling with the same meaning were treated together. Responses covering several topics were coded under several themes; a response was counted only once within each theme. No independent second-coder assessment was undertaken, so inter-coder reliability was not calculated.

The 182 responses eligible for thematic coding represent 5.8% of the 3,125 analysed response records. The percentages below use these 182 responses as the denominator. Multiple coding means that the total theme count exceeds 182 and percentages exceed 100% in total. These distributions cannot be generalised as the frequency of views among all students. Responses containing only praise, thanks or no additional opinion were not included in expectation-theme frequencies.

This theme covers preparation for professional life, subject knowledge and skills, personal development, connections to everyday life, and lasting learning. It is the most frequent theme, appearing in 51 responses.

This theme covers general expectations that the course will be useful, productive, successful or run smoothly. These statements do not imply a preference for a particular teaching method.

Requests for questions and answers, discussion, reciprocal communication and active student involvement are prominent. Statements supporting group work were also included in this theme.

This theme combines requests for fair marking, clear examination questions, appropriate examination difficulty, passing the course, high grades, revision before examinations and alternative assessment. These should not all be interpreted as support for the same assessment instrument.

This theme includes requests for fewer assignments and presentations, a less demanding process, greater emphasis on instructor explanations and individual work. Requests to avoid or reduce group work were retained within this theme.

This theme covers requests for practical work, case analysis, example problems, visits and activities. Statements opposing practical work were not coded as requests for it.

This theme includes expectations concerning sharing and uploading course notes and slides, visual and video support, accessible resources and material design.

This theme covers expectations of feedback, an understanding and friendly approach, reduced anxiety and student-centred communication. Anxiety associated with being asked to work at the board was included without identifying individuals.

This theme covers requests for straightforward explanations, clear content and learning outcomes, worked examples, revision and reinforcement of topics.

This theme covers expectations concerning a wider range of electives, class times, breaks, block classes, course delivery and the planning of learning activities outside school.

Some responses support group work, while others request that it be avoided or that group assignments be reduced. Preferences also vary concerning individual work, emphasis on practical work and emphasis on instructor explanations. Responses assigned to multiple themes do not constitute mutually exclusive groups of people; frequencies refer to response records.

Students’ verbatim statements have not been published. Theme descriptions summarise the meaning of responses and are not direct quotations. Statements containing instructor or course names have been anonymised in the text intended for publication. Open-ended findings complement the quantitative results; they do not independently represent all students in the faculty.

Teaching plans may take account of the methods and materials most frequently preferred by students. These preferences should be considered alongside course learning outcomes, practical requirements and accessibility. The popularity of a method is not evidence that it is more effective for learning.

The purposes of assessment tools and marking criteria may be shared clearly at the beginning of the semester. Brief diagnostic activities may be used to assess prior knowledge. Overall findings can inform faculty-level planning, while course-specific reports can support the relevant instructor’s course adjustments.

Open-ended findings suggest reviewing access to course notes, professional applications, fair and clear assessment criteria, balanced assignment workloads and feedback processes that reduce anxiety. As preferences for group and individual work differ, flexible arrangements aligned with course learning outcomes may be considered.

End-of-semester evaluations may monitor course adjustments together with student feedback. Initial expectations and end-of-semester satisfaction are distinct constructs; claims about change or impact require appropriate measurement and matching designs.

Source: Updated raw responses to the Faculty of Education Student Expectations Survey · Autumn semester, 2026–2027 academic year · Data cut-off and update: 13 October 2026.