What do students say about teaching delivery in aeronautical and aerospace engineering?

By Student Voice Analytics
delivery of teachingaeronautical and aerospace engineering

Students describe stronger experiences when delivery is structured for different study modes, assessment is transparent, and lab-based learning is integral. In the delivery of teaching theme of the National Student Survey (NSS, the UK-wide survey of final-year undergraduates), 60.2% of comments are positive overall, but tone in Engineering & technology sits lower at +9.5; within aeronautical and aerospace engineering, Assessment methods score −40.5. Full-time learners respond more positively to delivery (+27.3) than part-time learners (+7.2), so parity of access, pacing and worked examples matter as much as innovation.

Teaching aeronautical and aerospace engineering presents distinctive demands. The integration of highly technical theory with advanced practical elements requires delivery that responds to student needs while sustaining academic rigour. Using student surveys, text analysis and structured student voice helps staff analyse what works and adjust approaches across lectures, labs and hybrid models. Hybrid formats now shape how modules are designed and timetabled; the most effective programmes prioritise consistent materials, clear links between sessions, and opportunities to consolidate learning.

Which teaching methods best sustain engagement?

Students value a deliberate balance of theoretical lectures with practical labs and simulations that test concepts. Programmes lift comprehension when they use step-by-step worked examples, short formative checks and pacing breaks, especially on mathematically intensive content. Standardising slide structures and terminology reduces cognitive load, while micro-exemplars of high-performing sessions help teams spread effective habits. This approach bridges theory and practice and gives staff timely diagnostics on where to adjust content and delivery.

How should we use technology and simulations?

Flight simulators and computational tools move abstract theory into applied learning without risk, providing immediate feedback and rich performance data. Their impact grows when lab work and simulations are integrated with assessment briefs and revisited across modules. To support part-time learners and those balancing commitments, providers record core sessions, release materials promptly, and chunk longer demonstrations with concise summaries and worked examples that can be revisited asynchronously.

How do we anchor learning in industry practice?

Students want to see how study links to future roles, so curricula benefit from internships, authentic industry problems and projects that mirror aerospace workflows. Where placements and fieldwork are available they strengthen motivation and reinforce learning; programmes can widen access by curating smaller, well-scaffolded authentic tasks when placements are limited, and by making the rationale for tools and standards explicit.

How should we assess and give feedback?

Assessment in this discipline needs to evidence both theoretical understanding and applied competence. Student comments in this subject often converge on expectations and transparency, so programmes prioritise annotated exemplars, checklist-style rubrics and brief marking rationales. Calibrating markers and publishing a service-level for feedback (what students can expect, when and where) improves confidence and progression. Digital platforms help deliver timely, specific, actionable feedback and make assessment briefings easy to reference.

What support and resources do students need most?

Students value access to well-equipped labs, alongside tutoring and targeted study materials that help them manage complex content. Providers increase impact when they keep facilities visible and accessible, signpost “what to do next” after sessions, and ensure resource parity across sites and cohorts. Student voice should shape operational decisions like extending lab hours or focusing tutorials on known pain points emerging from formative checks.

Where are the pressure points and how do we respond?

Workload and the transition from theory to practice can be challenging without strong scaffolding. Scheduling and organisation issues can quickly erode student confidence; programmes benefit from naming an owner for timetabling, keeping a single source of truth for changes, and sharing a weekly “what changed and why” note. Regular pulse checks after key blocks, reviewed termly with programme teams, keep a simple feedback loop that tracks shifts by mode and age and turns insight into substantive action.

What should providers prioritise now?

Focus on delivery practices that reduce cognitive load and support all modes of study; integrate simulations where they directly serve outcomes; and make assessment methods transparent from the outset. Protect what students rate highly (facilities and applied learning) while stabilising operations and lifting assessment clarity. This combination sustains engagement and better prepares graduates for aerospace careers.

How Student Voice Analytics helps you

  • Measure topics and sentiment over time for delivery, from university to programme level, with drill-downs by cohort, mode and age.
  • Benchmark like-for-like against Engineering & technology and aeronautical and aerospace engineering, so teams see where delivery and assessment need attention.
  • Provide concise, anonymised summaries and export-ready outputs for programme teams and academic boards to act on quickly.
  • Track the impact of changes to delivery, timetabling and assessment across terms, supporting evidence for NSS and TEF narratives.

Book a Student Voice Analytics demo

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

More posts on delivery of teaching:

More posts on aeronautical and aerospace engineering student views: