How to Improve Student Survey Response Rates: Proven Hacks from UK Universities

UK universities can improve student survey response rates by using proven strategies from UK universities that boost participation and feedback quality.

This resource explains why student response rates are declining and shares effective methods to increase engagement in higher education surveys. Key tactics include clear communication about surveys, strong faculty involvement, thoughtful use of incentives, and well-timed reminders.

You’ll also learn about:

• Automated survey tools, real response rate benchmarks, and common mistakes to avoid
• Real examples from UK universities that show how these approaches work in practice
• Tactical best practices to increase survey completion, improve feedback, and build a stronger culture of trust

The Sector Challenge: Boosting Survey Completions in Higher Education

Improving student survey response rates in the UK requires a combination of clear communication, thoughtful design, and meaningful incentives.

First, universities should explicitly explain why surveys matter and how results are used. Students are more likely to respond when they see a direct link between their feedback and visible changes, such as improvements to course content, library resources, or support services. Communicating these 'you said, we did' outcomes through channels such as email, social media, and campus displays builds trust and reinforces the value of participation.

Surveys must also be easy to access and complete. Shorter surveys with mobile-friendly interfaces significantly reduce friction. Embedding survey links in learning platforms such as Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle - where students already spend time - can help. Timing plays a major role: launching surveys during quieter academic periods, avoiding exam seasons, and sending reminders at carefully spaced intervals prevent issues such as survey fatigue.

Personalisation can also increase engagement. Emails addressed to students individually, messages from lecturers rather than generic administrative accounts, and in-class announcements all convey a sense of personal relevance. Staff can further boost participation by dedicating time in seminars or lectures for students to complete surveys on their devices.

Finally, incentives can be effective when used thoughtfully. Prize draws, vouchers, and charitable donations tied to response milestones motivate participation without undermining survey integrity. Peer-driven initiatives - such as student ambassadors promoting survey campaigns - also create social encouragement. By combining transparency, thoughtful design, personal engagement, and well-structured incentives, UK institutions can significantly raise student survey response rates while strengthening a culture of meaningful feedback.

Why Are Student Survey Response Rates Falling in UK Higher Education?

Student survey response rates in the UK have been declining in recent years, and several interconnected factors help explain this trend.

One of the most significant is 'survey fatigue'. Students are increasingly asked to complete numerous feedback forms throughout their studies - module evaluations, wellbeing surveys, national questionnaires, and internal departmental polls. As a result, surveys begin to feel repetitive, time-consuming, and low-value, leading many students to ignore them altogether.

Another factor is declining trust in whether feedback leads to change. Many students report feeling that their comments disappear into institutional systems without producing visible improvements. When universities do not clearly communicate how survey results have influenced policy or course design, students become less motivated to participate.

Changes in the higher education student experience may also play a role. The rise of part-time work, commuting, and hybrid learning means students spend less time on campus and may feel less connected to institutional processes. This can make surveys seem less relevant or less central to their academic lives.

Lastly, concerns about data privacy and the personal nature of some questionnaires can deter engagement. Students are increasingly cautious about how their responses might be used. Together, these factors have created an environment in which completing surveys feels less urgent and less meaningful, contributing to declining response rates across UK institutions.

Ideal Timing to Improve Participation in Student Surveys

Determining the ideal timing for student surveys in UK higher education requires balancing data quality, student workload, and institutional needs. In general, the most effective survey windows align with periods when students can meaningfully reflect on their experiences without facing excessive academic pressure.

For module-level surveys, the optimal timing is typically in the final weeks of teaching but before major assessment deadlines. At this point, students have experienced the full range of teaching activities and resources, enabling more informed feedback. Conducting surveys too early risks capturing impressions before key learning components have taken place, while administering them during peak assessment periods often leads to low response rates and rushed or incomplete responses. That said, mid-module evaluations are on the rise.

For programme-level or annual experience surveys, such as those used internally or nationally in the form of the National Student Survey (NSS) for final-year undergraduate students, the most effective period is usually mid-spring. By this stage of the academic year, students have engaged in enough learning, support services, and assessment activities to provide well-rounded feedback. This timing avoids the intense final-exam season, increasing participation and ensuring more thoughtful responses.

Post-graduation or exit surveys, however, are generally best conducted within a short window after course completion. At that stage, students can provide holistic reflections on their entire programme, while still feeling connected to their institution. Delaying too long reduces response rates and the accuracy of recollections.

Across all survey types, a general principle is that institutions benefit most when scheduling considers workload calendars, avoids survey fatigue, and clearly communicates the survey purpose. Coordinated timing supports higher engagement and yields more reliable, actionable insights to enhance both learning and teaching.

Multi-channel Reminders to Drive Clear Communication to Students

Multi-channel reminders are commonly used across UK higher education institutions to boost student survey response rates, particularly for major national instruments such as the NSS, the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES), and various internal module evaluations. The central idea is to reach students through several communication pathways, so no single reminder is overlooked, while reinforcing the importance and ease of participating.

Email remains the primary channel, often scheduled in a sequence that begins with an initial invitation followed by targeted reminders to non-respondents. Institutions supplement this with Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) notifications, as students routinely log in to access course materials. Many universities also use SMS or app-based push notifications through various platforms or student union apps, which provide short, timely prompts that are harder to miss.

Social media campaigns play a significant role, especially where institutions have strong student-facing Instagram, TikTok, or X accounts. These posts often highlight deadlines, incentives, or the impact on departmental league tables. Physical reminders continue to be effective too: posters, banners, digital screens on campus, and pop-up stalls run by student ambassadors add visibility and help capture attention in high-traffic areas.

Some universities integrate tutor-led reminders, in which academic staff encourage participation during lectures or seminars, fostering a supportive culture of feedback. Others employ personalised dashboard alerts in student portals that show survey completion status.

By combining this range of methods, UK universities can increase the likelihood that students encounter reminders in formats that suit their habits, ultimately improving response rates and ensuring that surveys provide representative, actionable insight for teaching enhancement and student experience improvement.

Since implementing Explorance and launching an internal promotion campaign to staff and students, Ulster University's results have transformed dramatically:

• A pilot survey in the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment in March saw a 33.39% engagement rate from over 6,000 students - compared with 9.03% using the old system.
• End-of-module surveys across all four faculties, involving 11,697 invites, later achieved a 22.96% engagement rate, up from 6.5% in the 2023-24 academic year.
• Mid-module surveys undertaken for the Faculty of Computing, Engineering, and the Built Environment in semester one of this academic year delivered a 28.92% engagement rate, with more than half of the 50 modules exceeding 50% participation.

The Role of Faculty in Improving Student Feedback Response Rates

Faculty play a pivotal role in driving the completion of UK student surveys - including module evaluations and institutional pulse surveys - because students' willingness to participate is strongly influenced by trust, relevance, and perceived impact.

Academics and lecturers are uniquely placed to shape all three. First, academics are often the most consistent point of contact for students. When faculty explain why survey feedback matters, students are more likely to see it as a meaningful opportunity rather than an administrative task. Clear, authentic communication - such as sharing how past responses have shaped curriculum design, assessment formats, or learning resources - helps students understand the tangible value of completing surveys.

Second, faculty help create the conditions that encourage participation. Embedding reminders into lectures, seminars, and VLEs normalises survey completion as part of the academic cycle. When lecturers provide structured time - such as a few minutes at the end of a session - response rates typically increase because students can act on that request immediately.

Third, faculty attitudes directly shape student perceptions. If academics speak positively about surveys, students infer that their input is respected and that the process is genuinely aimed at improving teaching quality. Conversely, indifference or scepticism from staff can undermine participation, even when institutional campaigns are strong.

Finally, faculty involvement ensures feedback loops are closed. Sharing 'you said, we did' examples reinforces a culture of partnership between staff and students. When students see that their voices lead to visible improvements, they are more likely to complete future surveys, creating a sustainable cycle of engagement and enhancement.

Do Survey Incentives Work for UK University Students?

Universities across the UK increasingly rely on student surveys to inform quality assurance and strategic decision-making - yet, with response rates remaining a persistent challenge, institutions are experimenting with incentives.

Evidence from higher education practice suggests that incentives can improve participation, but their effectiveness depends heavily on design, context, and student perceptions. Monetary incentives, including prize draws, vouchers, or small guaranteed rewards, tend to produce modest but measurable increases in response rates.

Non-monetary incentives - such as releasing feedback earlier, entering students into departmental recognition schemes, or providing charitable donations per submission - can also boost engagement when they align with students' values.

However, incentives alone generally do not resolve deeper issues underlying low participation. Students may be disengaged if they believe their feedback has little impact, if survey fatigue is high, or if the timing clashes with academic pressures. In such cases, incentives operate as short-term nudges rather than long-term solutions. Institutions that couple incentives with strong communication - demonstrating how previous feedback has led to tangible change - tend to see more sustainable improvements.

Overall, incentives can be effective but are most powerful when integrated into a broader strategy that builds trust, reduces burden, and clearly signals the value of student voice. Without this, their influence on UK student survey response rates remains relatively limited.

Benchmarking Student Survey Response Rates in UK Higher Education

Response rate benchmarks for UK student surveys vary by sector, survey purpose, and institutional context; however, several commonly referenced standards help higher education institutions evaluate performance and data quality.

In national surveys such as the NSS, response rates typically range from 65% to 75% across the sector, with many institutions setting internal targets of around 70% to ensure robust representation. Higher response rates are associated with greater statistical reliability, particularly for smaller subject areas, so universities often aim to exceed national averages to maximise the usefulness of course-level insights.

For internal module or course evaluations, benchmarks are typically lower. Many UK universities consider 40% to 50% a reasonable target for mid-semester or end-of-module surveys, though survey fatigue can depress engagement. Some institutions set minimum acceptable thresholds (e.g., 30%) for reporting results or triggering follow-up analysis. Response rates tend to increase when surveys are short, well-timed, and clearly linked to visible improvements in teaching and student experience.

For postgraduate surveys, such as PTES or the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES), sector averages usually sit around 30% to 45%, reflecting smaller population sizes and more diverse engagement patterns. Institutions may aim for 40% or higher to ensure meaningful comparisons across departments.

Ultimately, benchmarks serve as guidance rather than strict requirements for universities. The most effective practice is to focus on improving response quality and inclusivity through targeted communications, personalised reminders, and transparent feedback loops that demonstrate how student input leads to change. This approach can strengthen not only response rates but also trust in the survey process.

Tech Tools for Autoamting Student Survey Reminders

In the context of UK student surveys, automating reminders is critical for boosting response rates and ensuring comprehensive data collection. Several technology tools are widely used for this purpose, integrating seamlessly with survey platforms to streamline follow-ups.

One effective solution is Learning Management System (LMS) integrations, such as Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle, which can automatically prompt students within the LMS environment. Notifications can appear as pop-ups, dashboard alerts, or emails, keeping the survey visible to students during their routine online learning activities.

Universities using Explorance benefit from built-in automation: Blue sends automated email invitations to students when a module evaluation or other survey launches, followed by two scheduled reminder emails - one mid-way through the response period and another on the closing date (only to students who have not yet responded). The system batches emails to avoid duplicate emails when multiple surveys overlap.

For the follow-up and qualitative analysis stages, MLY adds value: once surveys close, MLY can automatically analyse free-text feedback at scale, extracting themes, sentiments, and actionable recommendations from thousands of responses - something that manual coding would take weeks. This makes the 'close the feedback loop' stage more feasible and timely.

Overall, combining tools strategically - LMS integration, email automation, survey-platform reminders, and SMS notifications - can significantly enhance survey completion rates in UK universities while minimising administrative overhead. These automated solutions save staff time and improve data reliability for institutional decision-making.

Common Mistakes That Can Lower Student Response Rates

UK universities often strive to improve student survey response rates, but common factors can undermine their efforts.

One is over-reliance on incentives. While offering prizes or vouchers may temporarily boost participation, it can attract responses from students motivated primarily by rewards rather than genuine feedback, potentially skewing results and reducing the quality of the collected data.

Another frequent mistake is poor timing and communication. Universities often bombard students with reminders at inconvenient points in the academic calendar, such as during exam periods or assignment deadlines, when students are least able to engage thoughtfully. Similarly, generic emails with impersonal messaging fail to convey the survey's importance, leading to low student engagement.

A third issue is neglecting transparency and follow-up. Students are more likely to respond if they understand how their feedback will influence teaching or university policy. Many institutions fail to close the feedback loop, leaving students feeling that their input is ignored, which can reduce participation in subsequent surveys.

Finally, some universities assume a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, applying the same strategies across faculties or student groups without accounting for differences in learning environments or communication preferences. This can result in uneven response rates and missed opportunities to engage underrepresented student populations.

To genuinely improve survey engagement, institutions must generally prioritise meaningful communication, demonstrate the value of feedback, and tailor their approaches to the diverse needs of their student body, rather than relying solely on extrinsic motivators.

FAQs

Q: How can we get more students to respond to our survey?
Keep surveys short and easy to complete, ideally under 10-15 minutes, to prevent drop-off. Reach students through multiple channels like LMS, email, campus announcements, social media, posters, and SMS for better visibility. Clearly explain why their feedback matters and how it will lead to improvements.

Q: When and how should we deploy the survey to maximise participation?
Avoid launching surveys during exams or holidays when students are busy or stressed. Make it easy to access the survey directly through trusted channels like the LMS. If possible, set aside class time and let students use their devices to complete the survey on the spot, as this often boosts response rates.

Q: Should we make participation mandatory (or link it to grades) to improve rates?
Some institutions achieve high response rates by making surveys mandatory or linking completion to grades, while others use small academic incentives like extra credit. Whichever approach you choose, be transparent about the purpose, the importance of feedback, and maintain student anonymity or confidentiality. Clear communication builds trust and supports the process.

Q: How many reminders should we send - and what sort of messaging works best?
Sending 1-3 email reminders to non-responders is effective for increasing survey completions. Refresh the language in each reminder to prevent fatigue and keep the messages engaging. Personalized outreach from instructors or student representatives, in addition to central communications, also encourages higher participation.

Q: How do we maintain trust, so students believe their feedback will be heard and acted upon?
Explain clearly why you're collecting feedback, how it will be used, and who will see the results, ensuring students feel their input is valued. Guarantee anonymity or confidentiality whenever possible, and always share the results and planned actions with students afterward. Involving multiple campus stakeholders shows you value their feedback and increases trust in the process.