Do mechanical engineering students thrive when collaboration is designed into the course?

opportunities to work with other studentsmechanical engineering

Yes. When collaboration is designed into modules and made easy to access, mechanical engineering cohorts report strongly positive experiences. In National Student Survey (NSS) open-text data for opportunities to work with other students, there are 7,331 comments overall with a mixed tone across the sector, yet engineering and technology stands out with a sentiment index of +26.8. Within mechanical engineering, teamwork is one of the highest-rated aspects, with a sentiment index of +30.9. The category reflects how students experience peer learning and groupwork across disciplines, while the subject grouping anchors this analysis to mechanical engineering programmes and their distinctive lab, project and studio patterns. These insights shape how we design collaboration so it lifts learning, not workload.

Mechanical engineering necessitates a complex blend of theoretical knowledge and practical application, best navigated through collective effort and shared insight. The benefits extend beyond project completion, offering students an arena to challenge and refine their ideas in real time. Text analysis of group interactions and feedback derived from student surveys helps staff optimise the collaborative environment, fostering an inclusive culture where different viewpoints are considered and the learning process is enriched.

Why does mechanical engineering depend on collaboration?

This multi‑disciplinary discipline requires students to combine engineering principles with elements of physics and materials. Group projects, labs and peer‑to‑peer learning expose students to varied problem‑solving techniques and specialist knowledge, building technical capability alongside communication, leadership and teamwork. Collaboration mirrors the professional environment graduates enter and strengthens readiness for complex, systems‑level work.

What gets in the way of effective collaboration?

Variation in skills within groups can hinder progress if roles and expectations are vague. Timetabling is a recurrent barrier for those off the standard pattern; across the wider topic area the full‑time versus part‑time gap runs to +22.7 index points, so access and scheduling strongly shape experience. In this subject, Scheduling/timetabling sentiment sits at −31.9, signalling friction around meeting times, use of specialist spaces and change‑handling. Technical tooling can also trip teams if digital spaces, version control and data handling are not pre‑provisioned. Without light‑touch accountability, uneven contribution risks undermining trust.

Where do current collaborative opportunities work best?

Group projects are a mainstay across UK programmes, often simulating real‑world engineering problems. These structured tasks, supported by defined roles and milestones, let students apply theory in teams while building professional skills. Engineering societies and clubs in areas such as robotics or automotive provide co‑curricular routes to practise and showcase skills. Universities increasingly use online platforms for collaboration, enabling asynchronous progress when physical meetings are not feasible and supporting students with atypical schedules.

How do students describe collaboration here?

Students highlight how teamwork deepens understanding and exposes them to different approaches they would not reach alone. They value opportunities to practice communication and coordination under time pressure. They also note frustrations when expectations differ or when meetings are hard to arrange around classes, placements or work. The balance of views reinforces a simple principle: collaboration works when it is designed as part of the module pattern, with space, time and tools set up in advance.

What should staff and administration prioritise?

• Build collaboration into timetables with kick‑off, mid‑point and showcase points, and publish roles, norms and deliverables from the outset.
• Provide asynchronous routes (shared workspaces, rolling deadlines) and set predictable “collaboration windows” to include time‑poor and off‑pattern learners.
• Pre‑provision digital spaces per group, with named channels, folders and templates, and keep workshop access predictable to reduce friction.
• Use light‑touch peer contribution checks at milestones and a fair peer‑assessment component to deter free‑riding, mapped transparently to marking criteria and the assessment brief.
• Maintain a single source of truth for weekly plans and any changes, and explain what changed and why when adjustments are unavoidable.

Which approaches enhance collaboration now?

Online collaboration platforms support real‑time communication, project management and document sharing, sustaining momentum between in‑person sessions. Peer review develops critical evaluation and accountability; combining it with short teamwork micro‑skills resources (conflict resolution, delegation, decision‑making) builds confidence. Interdisciplinary projects with electrical engineering or computing broaden perspective and innovation. Inclusion is visible when accessibility features are standard, hybrid‑ready rooms are bookable, and escalation routes for group issues are simple.

What should we do next?

Make collaboration the default pattern in modules, not an add‑on. Stabilise delivery mechanics so teams face fewer operational surprises. Align assessment with teamwork by clarifying marking criteria and feedback expectations, and by recognising individual and collective contributions. Keep what students say works in this subject: accessible staff, structured teamwork and resources that enable students to do their best work together.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

Student Voice Analytics surfaces topic tone and volume over time for opportunities to work with other students in mechanical engineering, with drill‑downs by school, cohort and demographics. It benchmarks like‑for‑like across subject groupings and segments, so programme teams can target mature and part‑time learners where timetabling and access bite. The platform produces concise briefings and export‑ready views for programme meetings, boards and quality reviews, enabling teams to prioritise, evidence change and iterate quickly.

Request a walkthrough

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and governance packs designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.

• All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
• Versioned outputs with TEF-ready governance packs.
• Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.

Book a demo Prefer email? [email protected]

More posts on opportunities to work with other students:

• Do sociology students get meaningful opportunities to work with peers?
• Does collaborative learning work in chemical, process and energy engineering?
• What do management students say about working with peers?
• Do business studies students benefit from structured opportunities to work with peers?

More posts on mechanical engineering student views:

• Do UK mechanical engineering students feel they get value for money?
• How did mechanical engineering students experience COVID-19?
• How do mechanical engineering students view university libraries?
• Is feedback helping mechanical engineering students learn?