


































Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

 

70 

 

 

Original Paper 

Teaching Reform and Practice of “Structural Mechanics” 

Course under the Background of New Engineering Discipline 

Xiaoxiao Sun
1
, Jinxiu Hu

1
, Huaken Zhang

1
, Qingchi Zhang

1
, Lijuan Chen

1
 & Qun Liu

1
 

1
 Qingdao City University, Qingdao, China  

 

Received: May 30, 2025         Accepted: June 10, 2025        Online Published: June 15, 2025 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v8n2p70                URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v8n2p70 

 

Abstract 

Under the background of the new engineering discipline construction promoting the transformation of 

engineering education, the traditional “Structural Mechanics” course has exposed pain points such as 

lagging content system, weak practical links, and single teaching methods. Based on the educational 

goal of the course, this paper proposes a three-dimensional teaching reform path oriented towards 

ability cultivation: through modular content reconstruction, organically connecting theoretical 

knowledge with engineering frontiers; by means of the blended teaching mode, building a 

multi-dimensional interactive learning ecosystem; relying on the optimization of the practical teaching 

system, enhancing students’ ability to solve complex engineering problems; and establishing a 

diversified evaluation mechanism throughout the entire process, deeply integrating ideological and 

political elements into the mechanics knowledge system. Teaching practice shows that the reform 

effectively promotes the coordinated development of students’ engineering literacy and innovative 

thinking, providing a reference implementation model for the connotation construction of professional 

basic courses under the background of new engineering disciplines. 

Keywords 

New engineering disciplines, structural mechanics, teaching reform, blended teaching, diversified 

evaluation, ideological and political education in courses 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

71 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

1. Analysis of the Current Teaching Situation of the Traditional “Structural Mechanics” Course 

1.1 The Course Content Is Abstract and Complex, and Its Structural System Lags Behind the Demands 

of the New Era 

The current knowledge framework of the “Structural Mechanics” course still centers on classical 

mechanics theories, mainly covering core modules such as static analysis, dynamic response, and 

stability calculation of bar structures. However, the course content shows a significant tendency 

towards theoretical abstraction, with most textbook examples being confined to traditional engineering 

fields like civil and industrial construction and bridges. There is a notable deficiency in coverage of 

emerging technologies such as intelligent construction, green structures, composite material structures, 

and prefabricated buildings. For instance, in mainstream textbooks, the integration of modern 

technologies like BIM collaborative design, structural health monitoring, and intelligent algorithm 

optimization is severely lacking, making it difficult for students to establish a mapping relationship 

between theoretical knowledge and modern engineering demands. This lag has led to a disconnection 

between course teaching and the core goals advocated by new engineering disciplines, such as 

“interdisciplinary integration” and “solving complex engineering problems”. As a result, students often 

fail to transfer knowledge effectively when facing real-world engineering problems. For example, they 

experience cognitive overload due to having to memorize numerous formulas for solving statically 

determinate structures without a deep understanding of the fundamental principles of mechanics; there 

is a technological generation gap, with textbooks lacking content on the application of digital twins and 

machine learning in structural analysis; and there is a lack of interdisciplinary connections, with 

cross-disciplinary content such as composite material constitutive models and integrated 

structure-control design not being included in the knowledge system. 

1.2 The Marginalization of Practical Teaching and the Absence of Innovation Ability Cultivation 

The structural imbalance in the practical teaching system. Traditional courses position experimental 

classes as “tools for verifying theories”, only setting up basic experiments such as deflection 

measurement of simply supported beams and internal force analysis of trusses. Students mechanically 

follow the operation procedures in the experimental manual, such as directly applying formulas to 

calculate after collecting data with a strain gauge, without exploring the sources of errors (such as the 

influence of temperature drift) or reflecting on the rationality of model simplification. Most students 

have never independently designed an experimental plan. More seriously, complex structure 

experiments (such as stability tests of large-span spatial structures) have been completely excluded due 

to the lack of equipment, resulting in students’ understanding of real engineering problems remaining 

at the theoretical calculation level, lacking practical verification. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

72 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

Innovation training is disconnected from engineering practice. The so-called “innovation link” often 

becomes a superficial exercise: course designs frequently adopt idealized propositions (such as 

“internal force calculation of steel trusses”), ignoring actual constraints (such as construction errors, 

material nonlinearity, etc.); software teaching is limited to software operation demonstrations (such as 

basic modeling in Midas), without training in parameter sensitivity analysis or model correction 

capabilities. For instance, in the analysis of statically indeterminate structures, students merely follow 

the steps to solve for internal forces, without considering questions like “the impact of a 2 cm 

settlement of the support on the bending moment distribution” or “how to reduce secondary internal 

forces through structural measures”. This kind of training divorced from real scenarios deprives 

students of the motivation to identify problems and optimize designs. 

1.3 The Traditional Teaching Mode Leads To the Loss of Students’ Intrinsic Motivation 

The traditional teaching model that is currently widespread, characterized by “teachers lecturing, 

students listening, practicing after class, and taking final exams”, is profoundly restricting students’ 

initiative in exploration and their motivation for in-depth learning. Its drawbacks are mainly reflected 

in the following aspects: 

Passive reception replaces active construction, and the depth of cognition is limited. In the classroom, 

the one-way knowledge infusion places students at the receiving end of information. Students rarely 

have the opportunity to experience the complete scientific process of the formation of structural 

mechanics knowledge, such as “identifying problems - establishing models - theoretical derivation - 

solving and verifying”. For instance, when learning “force method for solving statically indeterminate 

structures”, students often mechanically memorize the typical equation forms and coefficient 

calculations, but find it difficult to actively think about their physical meaning (deformation 

coordination) and the logical necessity of the establishment process. Their understanding of the essence 

of knowledge remains superficial, which hinders the cultivation of critical thinking and knowledge 

transfer ability. 

The disconnection between abstract theories and practical applications, along with a vague sense of 

learning significance: The concepts in structural mechanics are highly abstract. If traditional teaching 

lacks a strong connection to real engineering scenarios, students find it difficult to establish an effective 

link between symbols, formulas, and vivid engineering phenomena. This disconnection leads to 

learning becoming a dull mathematical calculation, and students cannot deeply understand “why they 

are learning”. As a result, the intrinsic value of learning and the desire to explore are naturally 

weakened. 

The assessment methods are mostly standardized tests, which focus on testing students’ memory of 

theoretical knowledge and simple application, lacking the evaluation of students’ autonomous learning 

process, innovative thinking and complex problem-solving abilities. This makes it difficult to stimulate 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

73 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

students’ intrinsic motivation for in-depth study, ultimately affecting the cultivation of students’ 

professional qualities and innovation capabilities. 

1.4 The Teaching Methods Are Monotonous and Insufficiently Integrated With Information Technology 

The lack of demonstration of complex mechanical phenomena leads to low cognitive efficiency among 

students. Core concepts in structural mechanics, such as moment distribution, instability modes, and 

dynamic response, are highly abstract and dynamic. However, traditional teaching methods present 

these concepts using two-dimensional diagrams or simple animations, making it difficult for students to 

understand and master them. For instance, when explaining the “moment envelope diagram of a 

continuous beam under moving loads”, static diagrams cannot show the dynamic redistribution of 

internal forces caused by the change in load position. When analyzing “buckling instability of frame 

structures”, the absence of three-dimensional interactive demonstration tools for multiple modal shapes 

leads to students’ vague understanding of the instability mechanism. If finite element cloud rendering 

technology (such as ANSYS Workbench) is introduced, allowing students to adjust constraint 

conditions and observe the changes in stress flow, it can significantly enhance the efficiency of 

constructing complex concepts. 

The experimental system for integrating virtual and real-world elements is fragmented, which restricts 

the cultivation of practical abilities. Traditional experiments are constrained by equipment scale and 

safety risks, and can only complete basic verification experiments such as simply supported beams and 

trusses. Meanwhile, virtual simulation platforms are often disconnected from physical experiments: 

after students calculate the internal forces of steel frames using Midas, they cannot verify the credibility 

of the results through physical models. 

The intelligent learning diagnosis is lacking and the teaching regulation is lagging behind. The 

knowledge system of structural mechanics has a strong logical correlation. For instance, the force 

method is the foundation of the displacement method. However, in teaching, it is difficult for teachers 

to discover students’ sticking points in real time - is it the weakness in the concept of the force method 

or the deviation in understanding the “principle of the displacement method”? There is a lack of precise 

diagnosis based on learning big data. 

1.5 Course Assessment Is Dominated By Outcome-Based Evaluation, Emphasizing Results over the 

Process 

The assessment form is monotonous. Most universities still use the final closed-book examination as 

the core evaluation method for courses. The assessment question types are mainly traditional 

short-answer questions and calculation questions, focusing on testing students’ memory of formulas 

and standardized problem-solving steps (such as the method of virtual work, force method typical 

equations, etc.). This model is difficult to measure students’ engineering thinking, innovative 

consciousness, and practical application ability. For example, in the assessment of “solving statically 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

74 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

indeterminate structures by the force method”, if only the application of fixed steps to solve internal 

forces is required, while the understanding of the “physical meaning of deformation compatibility 

conditions” or the “comparison and analysis of the applicability of different solution methods” is 

ignored, it is easy to make students mechanically answer questions and fail to truly understand and 

master the principles of structural mechanics. 

The evaluation of practical ability has become superficial, and the disconnection between knowledge 

and action has intensified. Practical components such as course experiments and software modeling are 

often treated as “bonus points”, with ambiguous scoring criteria (for instance, only based on the 

completeness of the experiment report), failing to truly reflect students’ hands-on skills and engineering 

literacy. For example, in the experiment of measuring internal forces in truss structures, students might 

merely mechanically record data while neglecting error analysis. However, since the final exam does 

not cover practical details, such deficiencies in ability have long gone undetected and uncorrected. 

 

2. The Objectives and Implementation Pathways of the Reform of the “Structural Mechanics” 

Course 

2.1 Reconstruct the Course Content and Strengthen the Cultivation of Engineering Capabilities 

2.1.1 The Deep Integration of Theoretical Teaching and Engineering Cases 

Traditional courses tend to focus on mathematical derivations (such as the formula derivation of force 

method and displacement method), but downplay their engineering application background. After 

reconstruction, real cases can be embedded in theoretical teaching, such as explaining the principle of 

internal force redistribution in statically indeterminate structures by combining the “accident of bridge 

bearing settlement”, or introducing the concept of structural dynamics through “wind vibration control 

of high-rise buildings”, making abstract theories concrete and cultivating students’ engineering 

thinking of “inferring the essence of mechanics from phenomena”. 

2.1.2 Introduce Modern Analytical Tools and Enhance Digital Capabilities 

The current textbooks mostly provide only brief introductions to computer-aided analysis methods such 

as the finite element method. Practical operation modules for software like ANSYS and Midas should 

be added, requiring students to compare the results of manual calculations with those of software 

simulations (such as the deflection calculation of simply supported beams), analyze the sources of 

errors, and master the full-process ability of “theory - numerical model - engineering judgment” to 

adapt to the digitalization trend in the industry. 

2.1.3 Design Open-Ended Practical Projects to Cultivate Comprehensive Qualities 

Breaking the limitations of traditional “confirmatory experiments”, interdisciplinary project tasks are 

set, such as “design and optimize a model of a pedestrian bridge given a budget and material 

constraints”. Students need to independently complete load analysis, component selection, cost 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

75 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

assessment and other links, strengthening their innovative awareness, teamwork and engineering 

economic thinking. 

2.2 Build a Practical Teaching Platform to Enhance Innovative Application Capabilities 

2.2.1 Construction of a Virtual-Reality Fusion Experiment Platform 

Breaking through the limitations of traditional experimental equipment, a dual-track platform of 

“physical experiments + virtual simulation” is constructed. Physical experiments focus on basic skills 

training, such as strain gauge bonding and load testing; the virtual simulation platform, on the other 

hand, uses software like ANSYS and ABAQUS to simulate complex engineering scenarios (such as 

seismic analysis of long-span structures). The two platforms share data, forming a closed-loop training 

mode of “measurement - simulation - optimization”. 

2.2.2 Digital Capability Development Module 

Add a BIM technology integrated application section, requiring students to visually present the results 

of mechanical analysis and achieve collaborative work with design software such as Revit. Develop a 

mobile AR program that can display the internal force distribution of a structure by scanning it, 

enhancing spatial understanding ability. 

2.2.3 Construction of the Industry-University-Research Collaboration Platform 

Jointly build practice bases with design institutes and construction enterprises, and transform actual 

engineering problems into teaching cases. Introduce the “enterprise mentor system”, and jointly guide 

graduation projects to ensure that the topics are derived from real project demands. 

2.3 Reconstructing the Classroom Teaching Model with Students at the Center 

In terms of organizing teaching content, the original chapter sequence is broken and the teaching 

content is restructured. The principle of coming from engineering and going back to engineering is 

followed, and the chapters are divided according to different force-bearing structural systems. Before 

class, students learn through micro-lesson videos to understand the application of structures in 

engineering and stimulate their interest in learning. During class, teachers raise relevant engineering 

problems, guide students to think and discuss, and find answers from classroom learning to cultivate 

students’ ability to analyze and solve problems. After class, project tasks are assigned, requiring 

students to use virtual simulation platforms to simulate engineering scenarios. Students can transform 

complex structural mechanics problems into intuitive graphics and animations. This visual teaching can 

improve students’ learning quality. In this process, teachers mainly play the role of learning guides and 

resource providers, and help students gradually build a complete knowledge system by setting up a 

step-by-step problem chain. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

76 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

2.4 Integrate the “Online + Offline” Multi-Dimensional Classroom Organically and Build an 

Information-Based Learning Environment 

From the perspective of online teaching resource construction, the online platform needs to 

systematically integrate three types of core resources: micro-lectures (10-15-minute videos focusing on 

key and difficult points), interactive simulation modules (such as real-time bridge load simulation 

systems), and adaptive question banks (which intelligently push exercises based on students’ answer 

data). Taking the teaching content of “influence lines” as an example, students can first understand the 

mechanism of moving loads through online animation demonstrations, then enter the virtual laboratory 

to independently adjust parameters and observe the internal force change patterns, and finally complete 

personalized customized calculation exercises. This combination of resources not only ensures the 

systematicity of knowledge transmission but also meets the differentiated learning needs. 

In terms of classroom teaching organization, a hybrid model of “flipped classroom + project-driven” is 

adopted. The offline classroom time is mainly used for in-depth discussions and engineering practices, 

such as analyzing the actual force conditions of a bridge or the failure mode of a building under natural 

disasters. The role of teachers shifts from knowledge transmitters to learning guides, who set targeted 

question chains to guide students to apply the theories learned online to solve problems. At the same 

time, the real-time feedback system of smart classrooms is utilized to dynamically grasp students’ 

learning progress and adjust teaching strategies. 

2.5 Establish a Diversified Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism to Implement the Goal of 

Ideological and Political Education in Courses 

2.5.1 Establish a Diversified Assessment and Evaluation Mechanism 

The assessment content covers three aspects: knowledge assessment, ability assessment, and quality 

assessment. The knowledge assessment mainly examines students’ mastery of mechanics principles, 

accounting for 60%. The ability assessment includes experimental operations, group assignments, and 

engineering case analyses, accounting for 30%, and focuses on evaluating students’ ability to solve 

practical problems. The quality assessment includes innovative design and professional ethics, 

accounting for 10%, aiming to cultivate students’ innovative ability and engineering ethics awareness. 

2.5.2 The Integration Methods of Innovative Process Evaluation and Ideological and Political 

Education 

The form of “course diary + project defense” is adopted, requiring students to record their thoughts on 

major national engineering cases such as the “anti-seismic design of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao 

Bridge” in their learning logs, and to reflect the concept of sustainable development in group projects. 

Teachers guide students’ professional abilities and ideological and political qualities through dynamic 

evaluation scales.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

77 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

3. Conclusion 

Under the impetus of the new engineering discipline construction, the reform of the “Structural 

Mechanics” course is centered on the core concepts of “ability reconstruction, technology 

empowerment, and value elevation”, and has established an innovative teaching system that integrates 

three aspects. In the dimension of ability cultivation, it breaks through the traditional “theory + 

exercises” framework, and through a closed-loop training chain of “anchoring engineering problems - 

mechanical modeling and deduction - software simulation verification - multi-objective optimization 

decision-making”, enhances students’ ability to solve complex engineering problems. In the dimension 

of technology integration, it builds a virtual-real interactive platform of “physical experiments - digital 

twins - intelligent feedback”, visualizes the stress field with AR technology, and generates personalized 

problem-solving paths based on learning behavior data, thus resolving the cognitive difficulties of 

abstract concepts. In the dimension of value shaping, it innovates a dual-track evaluation mechanism of 

“technology – ethics”, combining the safety factor of structures with the sustainability analysis of 

materials. This reform has achieved a qualitative change from knowledge transmission to the 

cultivation of engineers’ qualities, providing a replicable model for the construction of new engineering 

courses - deconstructing knowledge barriers with cutting-edge technologies, tempering practical 

abilities through real projects, and solidifying professional foundations through ethical reflection, 

ultimately responding to the strategic demand of the new era for compound engineering talents. 

 

References 

Cao, Y. M., Yu, G. L., Jia, Y., & Xu, Y. Q. (2023). Reform and Practice of the First-Class Course of 

Structural Mechanics with “Two Centers, Three Stages, and Four Levels” Structure. University 

Education, (07), 42-46. 

Chen, D. D., Wang, Y., Wang, L. B., & Zhang, Y. T. (2023). Innovative Practical Teaching of 

Engineering Courses under the Background of New Engineering Education: A Case Study of 

“Structural Mechanics”. Talent Intelligence, (14), 69-72. 

Jiang, S. Y., Jin, R., Yang, H. X., & Sun, L. G. (2023). Teaching Design of Structural Mechanics Based 

on Blended Teaching and Ideological and Political Education in Curriculum. Higher Education 

Journal, (33), 108-111. 

Lin, Y., Zhang, Z., & Fan, X. S. (2023). Teaching Reform and Practice of Structural Mechanics Course 

Based on OBE Concept. Journal of Taiyuan Urban Vocational College, (11), 112-114. 

Ren, J. Y., Zhang, Y., Yang, C. J., & Li, H. Y. (2024). Research on Ideological and Political Teaching 

of Structural Mechanics Course in the New Era. Journal of Higher Education, (01), 174-177. 

Sun, L. (2021). Exploration of the Path of Industry-Education Integration for Talent Cultivation under 

the Background of New Engineering. Jiangsu Higher Education, (01), 80-83. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

 

Wu, F., Wu, C., & Zhu, Q. (2022). Promoting the Cultivation of Innovative AI Talents through the 

Integration of Science and Education and the Synergy of Industry and Education. China 

University Teaching, (Z1), 17-21. 

Zhang, J. J. (2023). Exploration of Structural Mechanics Course Construction for Mechanics Majors. 

Higher Education Journal, (19), 101-105. 

 


