Are current aeronautical and aerospace engineering assessments working for students?

assessment methodsaeronautical and aerospace engineering

Mostly not. In UK National Student Survey (NSS) open-text, comments about assessment methods across the sector skew negative, with 28.0% positive and 66.2% negative from 11,318 comments (sentiment index −18.8). Within aeronautical and aerospace engineering in the Common Aggregation Hierarchy used across UK HE, sentiment is sharper around the mechanics of assessment; Assessment methods in this discipline sit at −40.5. The implication for programmes is to preserve the mix of theory and practice while making methods, marking and feedback more transparent and predictable.

In the area of aeronautical and aerospace engineering education, identifying effective assessment methods that accurately reflect student learning and capabilities is central. Across UK institutions, staff favour a balance between theoretical exams and hands-on practical assignments. The diversity in assessment methods aims not only to gauge knowledge but also students’ ability to apply it in real-world scenarios.

For instance, theoretical exams typically test understanding of complex aerodynamic principles, while project-based assignments involve applying these principles to design and analyse aircraft components. This combination allows staff to assess a broad spectrum of skills, encouraging students to demonstrate practical proficiency. Such approaches keep learning aligned with industry expectations and technological developments.

Engaging students with practical projects also fosters a more dynamic learning environment. By integrating real-world problems into coursework, education in aeronautical engineering remains aligned with the evolving needs of the aerospace sector, strengthening preparation for professional careers.

How do students perceive assessment difficulty?

Students describe the technical complexity of assessments as demanding. Many find exams highly taxing because they require both theoretical mastery and disciplined problem solving under time pressure. Practical assignments, while challenging, are often preferred because they support deeper understanding and provide time to iterate.

Concerns about assessments that privilege quick recall rather than application recur in student feedback. This maps to wider sector patterns in which mature, part-time, disabled and not UK domiciled students often report greater friction with assessment formats and expectations. Programmes that reduce ambiguity and build in formative practice tend to mitigate these effects.

What changed about assessment during COVID-19 and what persists?

The pandemic accelerated online exams and shifted weighting towards project-based evaluation. These adaptations enabled continuity but also surfaced issues around academic integrity, digital access and the availability of immediate support. In this subject, a negative tail from remote delivery and pandemic disruption remains evident in student reflections.

Many schools retain shorter online tests and distributed coursework. Where these models persist, students respond better when the format is rehearsed in low-stakes practice, instructions use plain language, and support routes are explicit at the point of assessment.

What assessment approaches do aeronautical students prefer?

Students frequently favour project-led and continuous assessment. Capstone design projects, labs and collaborative tasks mirror professional practice, build independence, and make use of specialist facilities. Continuous assessment can reduce the shock of single high-stakes exams, encourage regular study habits, and provide timely feedback.

Successful modules explicitly connect task requirements to learning outcomes and typical aerospace roles. Visibility of resources and facilities, and opportunities to work with peers, strengthen engagement with project-based work.

How does feedback drive learning in this subject?

Targeted, prompt feedback helps students correct misconceptions and improve technique in areas such as aerodynamics, structures and control. Students value feedback that uses annotated exemplars, explains how marking criteria apply to their work, and signposts the next step. Early-stage learners benefit when feedback references the assessment brief and grading descriptors so they can calibrate effort.

Given persistent frustrations about methods and marking transparency in this discipline, teams that publish rubrics in checklist form, include a short rationale with marks, and show how assessment tasks are weighted and moderated tend to see stronger trust and uptake.

What challenges do students report with fairness, workload and stakes?

Students often query the alignment between taught content and exam emphasis, the consistency of marking, and the timing of deadlines across modules. Deadline clustering, long projects that collide with exam preparation, and opaque moderation processes elevate stress in a high-stakes environment where perceived fairness matters.

Practical mitigations that work well include early release of assessment briefs, a single programme-level assessment calendar to prevent pile-ups, short orientation on formats and academic integrity for those unfamiliar with UK norms, and accessible design choices baked in from the start. Predictable submission windows and asynchronous options for oral components support students balancing study with work or caring responsibilities.

What should programmes change next?

• Make the method unambiguous: publish a short assessment-method brief per task that states purpose, marking approach, weighting, allowed resources and common pitfalls, alongside checklist-style rubrics and exemplars.
• Calibrate for consistency: run light-touch marker calibration and record moderation notes; communicate how methods and criteria align to learning outcomes to close the loop for students.
• Reduce friction for diverse cohorts: provide early release of briefs, predictable windows, orientation for students new to UK assessment practices, and designed-in accessibility rather than individual add-ons.
• Coordinate at programme level: maintain a single assessment calendar to avoid deadline clashes and duplication of methods in the same term.
• Debrief after each assessment: share common strengths and issues before or alongside individual results to improve perceptions of parity and transparency.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

• Surfaces where assessment method issues concentrate in this subject, with drill-down by discipline, demographics, cohort and site.
• Tracks sentiment over time for assessment methods and related topics such as feedback, marking criteria and timetabling, with concise, anonymised summaries for programme and module teams.
• Supports like-for-like comparisons by subject mix and cohort profile, and provides export-ready outputs that fit boards, periodic review and quality reporting.
• Helps you evidence change by linking programme-level actions to shifts in student sentiment within aeronautical and aerospace engineering.

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 assessment methods:

• Do ecology and environmental biology students prefer practical assessment?
• Are mathematics assessment methods working for students?
• What do UK pharmacology students say about assessment methods?
• Are biomedical science assessments working for students?

More posts on aeronautical and aerospace engineering student views:

• Are aeronautical and aerospace engineering students getting feedback they can use?
• What do students say about teaching delivery in aeronautical and aerospace engineering?
• What do aeronautical engineering students say about teaching staff?
• Does current course content in aeronautical and aerospace engineering fit what students say they need?