Doukakis, J P (2024) A case study of a mechanics of solids course in civil engineering education. PhD thesis, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, USA.
Abstract
Upon graduation, students should possess the ability to make informed decisions, exercise sound judgment, engage in critical thinking, and continue developing their engineering intuition. The foundational concepts taught in Engineering Mechanics, particularly in Mechanics of Solids (MOS), serve as the cornerstone of technical knowledge in engineering. Consequently, engineering educators bear a significant responsibility to effectively impart these concepts, ensuring that graduates excel in their professional careers. However, students often struggle to retain and comprehend these fundamental concepts, hindering their application in the broader context of engineering design.Current research predominantly focuses on implementing various pedagogical interventions to gauge their impact on student learning. While valuable, the plethora of interventions and their inconsistent outcomes indicate a need for a fresh perspective on teaching mechanics courses, specifically MOS.This study adopts a comprehensive case study approach, examining a single MOS course at a large research university from the perspective of faculty, students, and industry stakeholders. Through qualitative methods, the aim is to delve deeper into the root causes of students' challenges in MOS courses. The research methodology includes classroom observations, problem-solving session analyses, interviews, and document analysis to identify recurring patterns and areas for pedagogical improvement. The research explores the integration of active learning strategies and optimization of Learning Management Systems to foster better student engagement.Emphasis is placed on well-defined learning outcomes, effective utilization of engineering diagrams, and understanding the dynamics between expert and novice problem-solving strategies. The findings offer nuanced insights into student study habits and suggest adaptations to assessment methodologies. This underscores a commitment to aligning engineering education with the evolving needs of students and the profession.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Atchison, J and Robson, M |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; optimization; active learning; careers; civil engineering; integration; learning; problem solving; teaching; professional; case study; document analysis; graduate; stakeholder; interview |
| Index terms: | document analysis, active learning, engineering education, adaptation, judgment, case study, exercise, critical thinking, learning outcome, engineering design, profession, dynamics, research methodology, commitment, strategy, qualitative method, student engagement, interview, management system, intuition, habit, integration, career, methodology, classroom, problem solving |
| Subjects: | psychology, construction type, user focus, specialized education, institututions, health behaviours and lifestyles, professional education, cognitive psychology, research methods, decision-making and reasoning, design process, data science, data collection methods, research design and methodology, dispute resolution, learning methods, organizational analysis, systems engineering, student development, management, professional development |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Education, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Information Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here