What do mechanical engineering students say about teaching staff?
Published May 12, 2024 · Updated Oct 12, 2025
teaching staffMechanical EngineeringAcross the National Student Survey (NSS) open-text, the Teaching Staff theme captures how students describe staff expertise, availability and interactions, and it trends strongly positive overall with a +52.8 sentiment index. For students on mechanical engineering programmes, defined in the sector’s Common Aggregation Hierarchy, the tone is more mixed at 49.8% positive, with friction around delivery and assessment. Within Engineering and Technology, sentiment on staff sits lower at +38.3, which reinforces the need for precision in explanations and predictable support. Comments cluster around how teaching is delivered and feedback mechanics: Feedback takes 8.3% of mechanical engineering comments, while Delivery of teaching trends −11.4. Students praise staff availability and collaboration, but they want clearer criteria, better-structured sessions and steadier timetables.
By listening systematically to student voice and triangulating survey comments with module-level intelligence, institutions can target the parts of delivery that most affect learning in mechanical engineering. The insights below translate those patterns into practical actions for teaching teams.
How do students rate lecturer quality?
Students value lecturers who combine subject mastery with the ability to explain complex ideas step by step. They respond well to enthusiasm and to teaching that links theory to real engineering contexts. Where communication falters, especially around pace, signposting and language clarity, understanding suffers. Given the generally positive sentiment about staff across the sector but a lower tone in engineering, departments should prioritise worked exemplars, scaffolded problem-solving and predictable opportunities for questions across the cohort, with attention to consistency of experience for part-time learners and for groups who often report lower sentiment such as male and Black students.
How should course content and teaching methods adapt?
Delivery matters as much as content. Mechanical engineering students report that the structure, clarity and timing of teaching shape their ability to learn intricate material. Blend traditional lectures with interactive simulations, lab-based demonstrations and short, frequent practice tasks that receive quick feedback. Use a single, stable weekly pattern for materials and activities so students know what to expect and can prepare effectively.
What support from staff matters most?
Availability and responsiveness from staff underpin a positive learning climate in mechanical engineering. Visible office hours, timely answers to queries and consistent use of module communication channels reduce uncertainty. Teaching teams should make support options predictable for both full-time and part-time students, summarise actions after key teaching moments, and check whether students can act on feedback within the next teaching cycle.
Do staff have the resources they need?
Access to well-equipped labs, workshops and current software allows staff to teach contemporary methods and give students the hands-on practice they expect. Regular training for staff on tools such as digital modelling and CNC equipment keeps delivery aligned to industry practice. Investment here is not only about equipment; it is also about enabling staff to design sessions that integrate practical and theoretical learning without overloading students.
What needs to change in assessment and feedback?
Students ask for assessment that mirrors authentic engineering tasks and for feedback they can use immediately. Provide annotated exemplars, checklist-style rubrics and sample marked scripts. Map marking criteria to learning outcomes in straightforward language and agree visible turnaround expectations across modules. Short feedback loops during labs and problem classes help students correct course before summative points.
What have we learned from online delivery?
Remote components remain useful when they have a specific purpose, such as pre-lab preparation, simulation practice or collaborative design reviews. Be explicit about the format, interaction and assessment fit, and rehearse use of platforms before live sessions. Where remote labs or demos are necessary, pair them with in-person debriefs so students can consolidate understanding and ask targeted questions.
What should departments do next?
Stabilise delivery mechanics and make assessment clarity a design principle. Keep high-trust behaviours visible across teaching teams, monitor sentiment by cohort and segment, and close the loop with students on what has changed. Protect time for staff availability, retain teamwork structures that students value, and publish a concise weekly plan for each module so changes are rare and well explained.
How Student Voice Analytics helps you
Student Voice Analytics turns free text into actionable insight for teaching teams in mechanical engineering and related disciplines. It provides continuous visibility of Teaching Staff comments and sentiment over time, with drill-downs from provider to subject family and cohort. You can compare like for like with sector benchmarks, segment by mode, campus and year of study, and export concise summaries for programme boards, quality reviews and TEF narratives. The platform shows where delivery, assessment clarity or course operations most affect the student experience, and it evidences progress with repeatable measures.
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:
More posts on Mechanical Engineering student views: