Structural Mechanics Learning as a Means for Learning Progression in Construction Engineering Courses

This article aims to investigate how the topics of course syllabus of “Structural Mechanics” can be designed to enhance learning progression within the course and towards related construction courses. A case study is conducted in this context, which deals with mechanics learning as a means of progression within construction courses in a typical civil engineering undergraduate program. In this context, it is presented a learning progression-oriented syllabus model for the course “Structural Mechanics.” The results show that course syllabi can serve as a foundation basis for effective learning progression through construction courses.

Introduction

Learning progression is an aspect that needs to be addressed by educators when developing educational programs. Learning progression describes how students’ knowledge, subject competence, skills, and expertise develop from elementary to advanced levels within a subject area. In this way, learning progression can map students’ progress from basic to advanced knowledge as well as their comprehension and motivation to learn.

The construction courses in typical civil engineering programs are important elements that constitute building blocks in a process that leads to a degree program. The course “Structural Mechanics” (or its variants: engineering mechanics, strength of materials) is mandatory for all civil engineering programs as fundamental block for further studies in construction courses: design of concrete, steel, wood and ground structures. Technically, the study of structural mechanics is important for designing and checking loading-bearing structures. In light of the learning progression, it is important to effectively integrate the study of structural mechanics with construction courses. Because teaching is, in many cases, practical, it is of interest to concretize the importance of learning progression within construction courses, especially how mechanics learning can be used as a means for learning progression in construction engineering courses.

Literature Review

With respect to syllabus development, Harnish and Bri dges (2011) examined how the manipulation of course syllabi can influence students’ perceptions of the instructor and class. Fuenteset al. (2021) concluded that the infusion of equity and diversity in syllabi can promote an inclusive learning environment. Merrill (2020) suggested that the effective design of syllabi can help promote efficient and engaging learning environments. With respect to teaching mechanics, Huanget al. (2020) suggested a teaching strategy for engineering mechanics to enhance students’ abilities to solve practical problems. Dodgeet al. (2011) suggested a physical approach to teaching statics, mechanics of materials, and structural analysis using hands-on techniques and experimentation. Li and Fuchigami (2024) developed a graphic animation tool aimed at aiding the conceptualization of difficult structural mechanics terms. Krylovet al. (2022) investigated how the application of genetic algorithms can provide an effective teaching method to enhance students’ learning in solving structural optimization problems. Weiet al. (2023) explored the application of virtual simulation technology in engineering mechanics. Walls (2016) discussed the use of several different teaching methods to assist engineering students in structural and steel design projects. Menget al. (2017) investigated the teaching system and methods in the Engineering Mechanics course to improve teaching quality.

It is thought that the design of course syllaba is an important step towards ensuring and controlling learning progression through educational programs. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no published studies have explored how learning progression can be designed for construction courses with the help of structural mechanics. This study investigates this case.

This paper is a continuation of the authors’ previous paper (Hassan, 2025) in which a learning progression model is derived based on cognitive learning theory and sociocultural learning theory. This paper aims to investigate how the course syllabus of “Structural Mechanics” can be designed to foster learning progression within the course itself and towards subsequent construction engineering courses. The primary hypothesis is that a thoughtfully structured structural mechanics syllabus can serve as a foundational basis for effective learning progression throughout a civil engineering undergraduate program. A practical model for the course syllabus is proposed, in this context, to help pave the way for learning progression in construction courses.

Methodology and Limitation

A practical approach is adopted in this study. In this context, a learning progression-oriented syllabus model for the course “Structural Mechanics” is presented and discussed based on the classroom experiences, observations and students feedbacks that the author has obtained as a lecturer in different civil engineering courses, especially courses that deal with structural mechanics and constructions. This study was conducted within the framework of civil engineering education. Furthermore, the study did not involve empirical systematic surveys or statistical analysis.

Proposed Syllabus Model

Fig. 1 shows the learning progression model for a program syllabus for construction courses within a typical civil engineering undergraduate program. The model illustrates the complexity of the learning progression and shows the components that can complement each other.

Fig. 1. A learning progression model for a program syllabus for construction courses in a civil engineering undergraduate program.

As can be seen, the course “Structural Mechanics” is a necessary basis for further studies in construction courses: the design of concrete, steel, wood, and ground structures. Technically, other construction materials can also be considered, such as aluminium and brick structures. In many cases, the course aims to introduce the fundamentals of structural mechanics applied to structures common in buildings and facilities. In this context, the topics or themes of the courses may be carefully selected and logically ordered so that they ensure learning progression within the same course and towards the following courses.

After completing the course “Structural Mechanics,” the student is expected to acquire sufficient prior knowledge regarding the structural design of structures made of wood, steel, concrete, and ground structures. Additionally, with the help of prior knowledge obtained from wood, concrete, and steel construction courses, knowledge in the same area can be deepened both theoretically and practically with an additional course “Design of composite structure’. Composite structures can have wide variations in construction materials, for example concrete–steel-wood etc. Finally, students are expected to be able to use the materials learned in construction courses to shape the overall picture of load-bearing structures as a complete system, for example, the structural design of bridges or the whole building structure, which can eventually result in a graduation thesis. The flow of learning progression can be designed and controlled according to the assessment model of learning progression (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Model for the assessment of learning progression, based on Hassan (2025).

Results

A learning progression-oriented syllabus model for the course “Structural Mechanics” may be described by the following themes or topics:

Theme 1: General introduction to load-bearing structures and structural mechanics

Theme 2: Cross-sectional forces in structures

2.1 Cross-sectional quantities

2.2 Free body diagram and equilibrium

2.3 Trusses

2.4 Cross-sectional forces in beams and frames

2.5 Influence lines and moving loads

Theme 3: Stress in structures

3.1 General information about stress and strain

3.2 Stress in beams

3.3 Plasticity of beams

Theme 4: Deflection of beams

4.1 Differential equation of deflected beams

4.2 Tables and superposition

4.3 Other methods to calculate beam deflection

Theme 5: Laboratory exercises 1

Theme 6: Statically indeterminate structures

6.1 Statically indeterminate beams

6.2 Statically indeterminate frames

Theme 7: Torsion of beams

7.1 Torsion of circular beams

7.2 Torsion of non-circular beams

Theme 8: Transformation of stress and strain

8.1 Transformation of stress

8.2 Transformation of strain

8.3 Yield and failure conditions

Theme 9: Buckling

9.1 Buckling of columns

9.2 Second-order theory for columns

Theme 10: Plates

Theme 11: Loading actions on structures

Theme 12: Dynamics/Vibrations

Theme 13: Laboratory exercises 2

Discussion

Overview

The course themes are ranked to show progression in learning as mutual development to enable continued learning based on the sequence of concepts, either in terms of deepening or specialization. For example, the deflection of beams is typically governed by the bending moment and, in some cases, by shear forces. Therefore, bending and shear are typically applied prior to deflection. Consequently, as learning progression usually occurs in stages, it is very important to follow a logical order of topics so that the student can associate concepts easily to progress in learning within the same course and following courses. In some cases, this may involve an increased level of difficulty or complexity. The sequence of concepts of the course themes agrees with the model shown in Fig. 2 with respect to step 1, in which students can use previously learned material in the same subject so that the basic parts of the subject are interconnected; in step 2, students will use the learned material in other subjects of the course in more applied contexts.

Laboratory exercises can involve lab experiments and computer experiments, where students develop their abilities to plan, carry out, interpret, and report experiments and observations, and compare the results with the theory. Furthermore, laboratory exercises can increase understanding of the subject and possibly clarify any deviations that could arise between theory and reality. It is noteworthy to indicate here that other topics, in addition to those mentioned in the syllabus (Sec. 3.1), can be included in the course content, for example, the analysis of shells as well as structural stability problems. However, these additional topics should be prudently selected to guarantee learning progression to subsequent construction courses. The course syllabus is also designed with respect to step 3 and eventually step 4 of the model (Fig. 2), when students continue reading related courses, as shown in Fig. 1. The scope of the course themes can also be designed according to the themes of the construction courses. For instance, the topic “cross-sectional quantities” should also include a review of composite sections in addition to homogeneous sections commonly taught in engineering mechanics.

From a practical point of view, the study course “Structural Mechanics” can be broken down into main modules or parts. For example, there can be two courses: “Structural Mechanics 1” (e.g., theme 1 to 5) and “Structural Mechanics 2” (theme 6 to 13). In both cases, the logical flow of the learning progression from courses 1 to 2 should be ensured. The objectives and learning outcomes of the two courses should, in this case, be clearly defined. It is believed that the time between the two courses in this case should not be so long that the student will not forget the topics learned in the previous modules and can still associate them with the coming modules.

To illustrate how structural mechanics can lead to effective learning progression within construction courses, let us take the following example that shows how learning mechanics with its suggested themes can progressively be integrated with the course “Design of timber structures.” The example lacks numerical values for the quantities because its purpose is to qualitatively show the interrelationships between the two courses.

Example Application

Design a wooden floor system (joists and chipboard flooring) for a residential building. The floor system is supported by five wooden columns and simultaneously loaded by an evenly distributed live load, compressive normal force, and torsional moment. Design refers to the ultimate and serviceability limit states. Further, investigate the effect of the composite action between flooring and joists. Finally, check the vibrations in the case where the floor system supports an electric motor in the middle.

Approach

Table I lists the calculation steps required to implement this solution. It is assumed here that the student has acquired sufficient prior knowledge of the subjects (themes 1–13) in structural mechanics so that the instructor(s) can build on this to successively complete the course “Design of timber constructions” and ensure sufficient learning progression flow between the two courses.

Table I. Design Checks for the Floor System in the Example

Course: Design of timber structures	Course: Structural mechanics
Calculation steps	Themes
Calculation and understanding of N-, V-, M- diagrams of the beams	1, 2, 6
Calculation of cross-sectional quantities including composite sections	2
Calculation and understanding of shear stress and normal stress	3, 8
Calculation and understanding of buckling and lateral torsional buckling	7, 9
Calculation and understanding of second-order effects	9
Calculation and understanding of deformations in the beams	4
Calculation and understanding of design value for imposed loading actions and normal force	11
Understanding possible plastic deformations in the beams	3
Calculation and understanding of torsional effects	7
Calculation and understanding of plate effects	10
Calculation and understanding of vibrations/dynamics of the floor system	12

Table I is, of course, not comprehensive, but it shows the direction of learning progression that the instructor(s) will take into consideration when planning didactic and pedagogical activities in the classroom. Although Table I is related to the course “Design of timber structures,” similar tables can also be constructed when dealing with other construction materials such as steel and concrete in order to identify and map the progression paths between structural mechanics and design of constructions. Cooperation among instructors of construction courses, including structure mechanics, can in this case be very helpful in identifying the opportunities for aligning teaching strategies with learning progression and addressing thereby potential learning gaps collectively, to enhance the process of learning progression.

Conclusion

The course “Structural Mechanics” can be strategically structured to build a coherent educational pathway for students in subsequent specialized construction courses. In this context, the course can play an important role as the basis for the progression of learning in a typical civil engineering program. In view of the author’s classroom experiences as well as students feedbacks, it is observed that any small failure in the learning progression of structural mechanics can lead to learning problems when the students will read further construction courses.

As the progression of a course content can consist of logical sequences, it is important for the instructors(s) to not jump to the next concept or topic without ensuring that students fully understand the previous one. In this context, using a formative assessment, such as a quiz at the end of a lecture, can be helpful. This formative assessment may be conducted continuously to assess students’ learning development. Additionally, formative feedback to students during exercises and lab demonstrations can help instructor(s) check the actual level of learning progression.

From an instructive point of view, the content of the syllabus of study should be designed such that it shows effective progression in learning. This implies that the content may have a reasonable degree of broadening and deepening in a stepwise manner.

In an educational program, the learning progression should be continuous, from simple scientific facts and basic principles in year 1 to broader perspectives and more complex study objects in the last year of education. However, planning for progression in student learning over a course consisting of a series of lessons is not an easy task, especially if more than one instructor is involved in teaching. It is fair to say that the degree of collaboration among instructors, in addition to students’ views and feedbacks, will determine the effective level of learning progression as well as the quality of teaching.

This study confirms the value of examining course syllabi as a method of organizing and supporting learning progression. In this context, the design of course syllaba of related courses in particular and all courses in education in general can be an important step towards ensuring and controlling learning progression through the entire educational program.

Therefore, collaboration of the involved educators in the educational program (cross-course instructor collaboration) will also be necessary to carefully review all the syllaba of the courses that constitute the program and maintain a continuous dialogue with students to identify learning gaps that need to be addressed.

For future research, it can be of interest to address the research question by developing avenues for empirical validation (e.g., student surveys, performance tracking, concept-inventory gains) to enhance the generalizability of results. Moreover, engineering-education theories such as threshold concepts or constructive alignment can also be engaged to deepen the conceptual framing of the study.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their helpful suggestions and comments.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.