Course-Level Teaching Reform in Soil Mechanics Based on Engineering Decision Making

Authors

  • Yuan Chang School of Civil Engineering, University of Science and Technology Liaoning, Anshan, Liaoning, 114051, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/6kytc704

Keywords:

Soil Mechanics, Curriculum Reform, Engineering Decision Making, Formative Assessment, Engineering Education

Abstract

Soil Mechanics is usually taught as a chain of related topics, yet a student can finish the calculations and laboratory exercises without ever connecting them to engineering judgment. This paper proposes a course-level teaching framework that ties soil behavior, evidence, decision making, and review together across eight core modules: soil classification, seepage, stress and effective stress, consolidation and settlement, shear strength, earth pressure, bearing capacity, and slope stability. Each module opens with a physical representation of the problem and then asks students to weigh assumptions, calculations, test results, and observations before settling on an engineering recommendation. Assessment draws on concept checks, numerical work, laboratory interpretation, short decision memos, and a cumulative coursework portfolio that preserves feedback and revision. A seepage lesson demonstrates the classroom process, moving from identification of a failure mechanism to the selection of control and monitoring measures. The paper also outlines a staged implementation and evaluation approach that rests on scenario assessments, student coursework and its revisions, and rubric-based evaluation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Liu, S. (Ed.). (2020). Soil mechanics (5th ed.). China Architecture & Building Press. (in Chinese)

[2] Li, G., Zhang, B., & Yu, Y. (2022). Soil mechanics (3rd ed.). Tsinghua University Press. (in Chinese)

[3] Phillips, D. T., & Quilligan, M. (2014). Teaching an introductory course in soil mechanics using problem based learning. International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Ontario, Canada. https://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/id/eprint/3535/.

[4] Kunberger, T. (2013). Revising a design course from a lecture approach to a project-based learning approach. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(3), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.800020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.800020

[5] Lobbestael, A. J., & Sleep, M. (2016). Investigating the effectiveness of new geotechnical engineering problem-based learning modules for student comprehension and attitude at two universities. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27323

[6] Agarwal, R., Kumar, K., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2026). Teaching geotechnical engineering through murder mystery problem solving. Journal of Civil Engineering Education, 152(2), 05025009. https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-2350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/JCEECD.EIENG-2350

[7] Chen, D., & Yang, X. (2025). Research on the innovative teaching of soil mechanics course based on the PBL game dual-drive model. Contemporary Education and Teaching Research, 6(6), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.61360/BoniCETR252018470605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61360/BoniCETR252018470605

[8] Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x

[9] Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871

[10] Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

[11] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102

[12] Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002

[13] UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54675/EWZM9535

[14] Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041

[15] Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x

Downloads

Published

22-10-2026

Issue

Section

Articles