Pedagogic tools to support conceptual understanding in structural engineering education : Experiences from the Swedish Universities of the Built Environment
Björnsson, Ivar LU and Danielsson, Henrik LU
(2026)
In TVBK
- Abstract
- In this report, we present findings from a Swedish Universities of the Built Environment (SBU) project (2023) where we collected and synthesized examples of pedagogic tools used to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding in structural engineering—i.e., understanding key structural concepts, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to real-world structures and practice. The project responds to a perceived imbalance in engineering education where assessment and teaching can (inadvertently) over-emphasize procedural calculation at the expense of intuitive and critical understanding—an issue made more pressing by the widespread use of computational tools (and, increasingly, generative AI) in professional practice.
We... (More) - In this report, we present findings from a Swedish Universities of the Built Environment (SBU) project (2023) where we collected and synthesized examples of pedagogic tools used to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding in structural engineering—i.e., understanding key structural concepts, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to real-world structures and practice. The project responds to a perceived imbalance in engineering education where assessment and teaching can (inadvertently) over-emphasize procedural calculation at the expense of intuitive and critical understanding—an issue made more pressing by the widespread use of computational tools (and, increasingly, generative AI) in professional practice.
We within the project group are teachers and researchers from Lund University, Chalmers University of Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Luleå University of Technology. We gathered input from our colleagues via e-mail or informal discussions. Nearly 80 examples of tools were collected from 20+ teachers. The tools clustered into four main types: digital demonstrations (e.g., videos and photos), interactive digital tools (apps and web tools), physical models and demonstrations (including scale models and “everyday objects”), and other printed or digital resources. Most examples targeted understanding of structural phenomena (e.g., behavior of beams, columns, frames, stability and torsion), followed by practical considerations (materials, construction tolerances and uncertainty) and structural design (procedures/codes and how design relates to real behavior). Many of the tools were judged to be low-cost and easy to adopt, with higher barriers mainly for tools requiring specialist laboratory equipment or certified skills. Student interaction and out-of-class access varied, with digital tools naturally supporting access and physical models sometimes requiring multiple copies and controlled availability.
To illustrate implementation, we develop two transferable tool families in more detail. First, we describe ‘everyday’ or low-threshold physical objects to support understanding of beam theory. Second, we elaborate on how small-scale building-frame models (custom kits or commercial sets) can be used to teach global stability of buildings. When embedded in active learning, these models supported improved [JL1.1]conceptual understanding based on experiences from Lund University.
Overall, we conclude that pedagogic tools—especially physical models and well-chosen digital visualizations—are widely used to connect theory, calculation, and real structural behavior, and that many tools are practically transferable across institutions because they are inexpensive and require limited extra resources. At the same time, any learning gains should not be attributed to the tool alone: effectiveness needs further study and will likely depend on how the tool is integrated (task design, sequencing, assessment alignment, and course scheduling). With powerful modelling software (and emerging gen-AI support) becoming ubiquitous, strengthening students’ ability to evaluate inputs/outputs and recognize limitations is increasingly important. Conceptual tools can help develop this critical judgment. We encourage teachers to adopt and adapt suitable tools reflectively and to share experiences to broaden good practice within structural engineering education.
(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/7e804c59-f551-43ee-b70c-f848d1c97b61
- author
- Björnsson, Ivar
LU
and Danielsson, Henrik
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2026
- type
- Book/Report
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- TVBK
- issue
- 3082
- pages
- 50 pages
- publisher
- Lund University
- ISBN
- 978-91-87993-32-9
- 978-91-87993-33-6
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 7e804c59-f551-43ee-b70c-f848d1c97b61
- date added to LUP
- 2026-06-01 09:45:08
- date last changed
- 2026-06-02 03:04:40
@techreport{7e804c59-f551-43ee-b70c-f848d1c97b61,
abstract = {{In this report, we present findings from a Swedish Universities of the Built Environment (SBU) project (2023) where we collected and synthesized examples of pedagogic tools used to strengthen students’ conceptual understanding in structural engineering—i.e., understanding key structural concepts, how they relate to each other, and how they connect to real-world structures and practice. The project responds to a perceived imbalance in engineering education where assessment and teaching can (inadvertently) over-emphasize procedural calculation at the expense of intuitive and critical understanding—an issue made more pressing by the widespread use of computational tools (and, increasingly, generative AI) in professional practice.<br/>We within the project group are teachers and researchers from Lund University, Chalmers University of Technology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Luleå University of Technology. We gathered input from our colleagues via e-mail or informal discussions. Nearly 80 examples of tools were collected from 20+ teachers. The tools clustered into four main types: digital demonstrations (e.g., videos and photos), interactive digital tools (apps and web tools), physical models and demonstrations (including scale models and “everyday objects”), and other printed or digital resources. Most examples targeted understanding of structural phenomena (e.g., behavior of beams, columns, frames, stability and torsion), followed by practical considerations (materials, construction tolerances and uncertainty) and structural design (procedures/codes and how design relates to real behavior). Many of the tools were judged to be low-cost and easy to adopt, with higher barriers mainly for tools requiring specialist laboratory equipment or certified skills. Student interaction and out-of-class access varied, with digital tools naturally supporting access and physical models sometimes requiring multiple copies and controlled availability.<br/>To illustrate implementation, we develop two transferable tool families in more detail. First, we describe ‘everyday’ or low-threshold physical objects to support understanding of beam theory. Second, we elaborate on how small-scale building-frame models (custom kits or commercial sets) can be used to teach global stability of buildings. When embedded in active learning, these models supported improved [JL1.1]conceptual understanding based on experiences from Lund University. <br/>Overall, we conclude that pedagogic tools—especially physical models and well-chosen digital visualizations—are widely used to connect theory, calculation, and real structural behavior, and that many tools are practically transferable across institutions because they are inexpensive and require limited extra resources. At the same time, any learning gains should not be attributed to the tool alone: effectiveness needs further study and will likely depend on how the tool is integrated (task design, sequencing, assessment alignment, and course scheduling). With powerful modelling software (and emerging gen-AI support) becoming ubiquitous, strengthening students’ ability to evaluate inputs/outputs and recognize limitations is increasingly important. Conceptual tools can help develop this critical judgment. We encourage teachers to adopt and adapt suitable tools reflectively and to share experiences to broaden good practice within structural engineering education.<br/>}},
author = {{Björnsson, Ivar and Danielsson, Henrik}},
institution = {{Lund University}},
isbn = {{978-91-87993-32-9}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{3082}},
series = {{TVBK}},
title = {{Pedagogic tools to support conceptual understanding in structural engineering education : Experiences from the Swedish Universities of the Built Environment}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/251638508/Report_-_FINAL.pdf}},
year = {{2026}},
}