What do aeronautical engineering students say about teaching staff?
Aeronautical and aerospace engineering students praise individual staff but want more consistent clarity and assessment transparency. In the National Student Survey (NSS), the teaching staff theme aggregates how students describe staff behaviours across the sector and records 78.3% positive comments with a sentiment index of +52.8. Within the discipline grouping for aeronautical and aerospace engineering, positivity is 48.9%, and students frequently query marking decisions, with marking criteria scoring -51.6. The technical nature of the field aligns with engineering and technology’s lower staff sentiment (+38.3), so predictable contact, worked examples and explicit marking guidance carry disproportionate weight here.
How well do staff communicate complex concepts?
Expressing complex concepts in accessible ways shapes learning and engagement. In a field as technically demanding as engineering, precise explanations, worked exemplars and signposted takeaways help students act on feedback and participate actively. Institutions should back this up with shared slide decks and exemplar solutions so module teams use consistent terminology and structure.
Does staff enthusiasm translate into better learning?
Students report stronger motivation when staff show sustained enthusiasm and follow-through. Visible care—timely feedback, targeted guidance, and time for queries—reinforces trust. Given the mixed tone around delivery in this discipline, teams should make passion tangible through predictable touchpoints and feedback students can action immediately.
Can students reach staff easily?
Approachability and predictable access underpin progression in a technical cohort. Departments should publish office hours, maintain rapid responses, and keep a single, updated channel for announcements. Short pulse checks after complex sessions help surface gaps early. When students see queries answered and changes explained, satisfaction rises even where workloads are heavy.
Which approaches to delivery work for this cohort?
Delivery matters as much as content. Students respond when staff connect aerodynamics, propulsion and systems to current industry problems, use interactive questioning, and stage labs or simulations that mirror professional practice. To make feedback usable, teams should agree marking approaches, provide annotated exemplars and brief students on how assessment methods align to learning outcomes. Iterating delivery based on mid‑module feedback keeps sessions relevant.
How should course structure connect theory and practice?
A strong programme balances rigorous theory with structured practice. Staff who refresh materials, integrate current standards and design projects that demand application help students see why concepts matter. Use facilities to anchor learning and enable peer collaboration in labs and design studios. Assessment briefs should reference the same criteria students see in taught activities.
How should technology extend learning beyond the classroom?
Digital tools extend contact and deepen practice. Virtual simulations support safe experimentation; discussion boards and short screencasts enable revision and peer support. Consistency across the VLE—where to find slides, recordings and Q&A—reduces friction for commuters and part‑time students and supports continuity when on‑site work intensifies.
What should we do next?
Focus effort where sentiment dips: make assessment methods and marking transparent, stabilise timetabling and communication, and keep high-trust behaviours visible through predictable office hours and updates. Protect what works—rich content, effective facilities use and peer collaboration—and keep the feedback loop open so changes are visible to students.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics tracks open‑text comments about teaching staff and delivery at programme and discipline level, with like‑for‑like comparisons against the wider subject family. You can see which topics drive sentiment for aeronautical and aerospace engineering, segment by cohort or mode, and export concise summaries for programme boards. Dashboards surface gaps in assessment clarity, organisation and responsiveness, and help you evidence the impact of changes over time.
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.
More posts on teaching staff:
- Do mental health nursing students feel supported by teaching staff?
- How can psychology programmes improve teaching and learning?
- What do students say about teaching staff in French studies?
- What do Nutrition and Dietetics students say about teaching staff?
More posts on aeronautical and aerospace engineering student views:
- What do students say about teaching delivery in aeronautical and aerospace engineering?
- Does current course content in aeronautical and aerospace engineering fit what students say they need?
- How does course communication affect aerospace engineering students?
- Are current aeronautical and aerospace engineering assessments working for students?