Behind the average: a 7.9 in teaching hides two different classrooms

Behind the Average is a series that reads the comments behind a single score, from the students who rated it lowest and the students who rated it highest. The number is the headline. The words are the story.

The finding

A 7.9 looks like a comfortable, slightly-above-average result. It isn’t. It is the blend of a large group of students who rate teaching around 9, and a smaller but substantial group who rate it around 3. The average describes almost nobody: roughly two-thirds of responses sit in the top band (8-10) and around one in twelve in the bottom (0-4), a bimodal split rather than a bell curve around 7.9. To understand it, you have to read both ends.

Lowest-scoring students 2.9

"It is just a lot of information on PowerPoints. I do not learn from that."

"There is too much self-study. I would learn more if the teacher actually stood and explained."

"The lectures are too long and do not prepare us for the exam."

"We do not really learn anything, we just repeat things, and the teachers cannot engage the class."

Highest-scoring students 9.2

"It works well that we are taught first, then get bigger tasks that force a practical understanding."

"Good balance between practical and theoretical work, and it challenges us on what we are learning."

"Most teachers vary the teaching and do not just read from the PowerPoint."

"Structured lectures, good examples, interactive, with quiz questions in class and at home."

Representative, de-identified comments from each segment. Translated from the original where needed.

The same recipe, present or absent

Read the two columns together and something striking appears. The two groups are not disagreeing about what good teaching is. They are describing the same recipe, one from its absence and one from its presence.

• Passive delivery vs active variety. The low group is stuck with PowerPoint monologues and self-study. The high group gets varied teaching that mixes theory and practice.
• Dumping vs scaffolding. The low group is handed material to get through alone. The high group is taught first, then given tasks that build understanding.
• Disengaged vs interactive. The low group cannot get the teacher’s attention. The high group gets examples, questions, and structure.

The average hides this completely. Two students at the same institution can be living in opposite classrooms, and both can tell you exactly what separates them.

What it means for institutions

1. Stop reading the average as satisfaction. A 7.9 is not “mostly fine.” It is a healthy majority and a struggling minority who experience teaching as PowerPoint and self-study. The number to act on is the size and the voice of the low segment, not the mean.

2. The fix is already written by your own students. You do not need a survey to tell you what to change. The high segment describes the target state in plain language: theory then practice, variety, structure, interaction. The low segment confirms it by its absence.

3. Find where the low segment clusters. This split is rarely random. It concentrates in specific programmes, teachers, or course formats. Course-level signals show where, so support reaches the classrooms that need it.

How we measure it

Based on StudentPulse check-in responses on teaching methods, scored 0 to 10. The lowest segment rated 4 or below, the highest rated 8 or above. Comments are de-identified, lightly trimmed, and translated from the original where needed; no student or institution is identifiable.