Emerging Trends in Structural Mechanics Education: A Bibliometric Approach from the Perspective of Colombian Professors

Abstract

Recent developments in higher education have transformed teaching–learning processes across disciplines, including structural mechanics in civil engineering programs. However, reports on innovative teaching practices in structural engineering are scattered, hindering their application in other contexts. This study consolidates and analyzes global research trends in structural mechanics education (from 2014 to 2023), complemented by insights obtained from surveys applied to students, instructors, and senior structural engineers in Colombia. The sample literature comprises 150 Scopus-indexed English articles analyzed with Bibliometrix. Eight guiding questions serve to characterize the literature, identify predominant pedagogical strategies, and outline future research directions. Results reveal limited collaboration networks, inconsistent keyword usage, and a strong concentration of U.S.-based authors and institutions. Most papers appear in engineering education journals, and the recurrent topics (active learning strategies, digital and virtual resources, and assessment methods) confirm the prevalence of experiential, student-centered approaches. Based on the findings, eight emerging areas should guide future research: sustainability, educational research, non-disciplinary competencies, digital resources, artificial intelligence, innovation, disciplinary competencies, and digital competencies. Also, it is recommended that engineering faculties focus efforts on clarifying competency frameworks, strengthening pedagogical and faculty development, investing in educational technologies and laboratory infrastructure, fostering collaborative networks, and enhancing the visibility of structural mechanics education research.

1. Introduction

Teaching and learning processes in engineering have evolved rapidly in recent decades, driven by accelerated global transformations that demand innovative curricula. The CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) approach offers a framework that considers all stages of engineering systems, such as civil infrastructure [1]. Simultaneously, ABET certification provides essential standards for assessing educational quality. In civil engineering specifically, the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (CEBOK3), prepared by the ASCE Task Committee [2], defines 21 fundamental learning outcomes aligned with ABET criteria and extensive educational experiences [3]. These outcomes span undergraduate education, technical skills, and professional responsibilities. However, technological advances offer possibilities for classroom innovation. The widespread diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) tools offers both possibilities and challenges for educational practices. Consequently, both external transformations (AI) and internal modifications (curricula) make civil engineering education a promising area of study.

The education of structural engineers is of the utmost importance, given their crucial role in ensuring public safety and well-being. Structural engineers require solid foundations in technical concepts, along with the ability to meet societal demands for sustainability. As globalization demands cross-disciplinary integration, structural engineers should collaborate seamlessly with architects and other specialists. This requires skills such as effective communication and teamwork, in addition to traditional technical knowledge. To meet these demands, new educational approaches are urgently needed. Modern strategies applicable to the classroom include physical models, digital resources, collaborative strategies, and case studies. The industry’s future depends on educators adapting to these changes, a sentiment echoed by the Structural Engineering Institute’s vision for the profession through 2033 [4].

Modern pedagogical strategies, such as the Flipped Learning Model [5], Problem-Based Learning (PrbBL) [6], and Project-Based Learning [7], can significantly impact structural engineering training. However, a key challenge remains: these strategies are often misunderstood or improperly implemented. For instance, PrbBL is sometimes reduced to merely assigning problems, whereas effective implementation requires comprehensive curriculum planning, collaboration among faculty, and adequate facilities. Furthermore, frameworks like Universal Design for Learning [8] emphasize that teachers and students should understand metacognitive processes to maximize the benefits of training. While universities are increasingly establishing pedagogical training centers, some institutions and professors may not be prepared to implement these trends. As noted in previous works [9,10,11,12,13,14], a PhD in structural engineering does not guarantee pedagogical expertise; yet, the new vision for the profession demands professors with appropriate knowledge of engineering education.

Despite these needs, documentation regarding teaching practices in structural engineering is scattered, preventing the transfer of accumulated experience. While bibliometric reviews exist for transportation [15], construction games [16], lean construction [17], and geotechnical technology-enhanced learning [18], there is a distinct lack of recent research reviews specifically focused on structural engineering education. The most relevant existing reviews are historical overviews from 2007 [19] or focus on structural art [20]. This represents a significant research gap: information on methods, tools, and assessment in structural mechanics is currently dispersed, hindering its adoption by educators.

This paper addresses this gap by presenting a systematic analysis of worldwide research on the teaching of structural engineering. It aims to gather dispersed information to facilitate its use by researchers and professors seeking to improve their teaching methods. The study analyzes 150 papers published between 2014 and 2023 in the Scopus database. While the Bibliometrix tool [21] supports analysis following the PRISMA approach, a further manual extraction of information was necessary to complete it. This dual approach allows for a deeper understanding of collaboration networks and proposes a novel classification of pedagogical strategies by specific domains (statics, mechanics of materials, and structural analysis). Additionally, Section 2 describes structural mechanics education in Colombia from the perspective of the authors, who work at universities in the main cities of Colombia (Figure 1). To address the research objective, the following questions are proposed:

• Q1: Who are the main authors, collaboration networks, institutions, and countries researching the subject?
• Q2: What are the leading journals for publications on this subject?
• Q3: Is research on this subject showing an increasing trend?
• Q4: Are the keywords adequately defined?
• Q5: What are the main topics of research?
• Q6: What are the most cited articles on the subject?
• Q7: What does the evidence from the analyzed research tell us about the education of structural mechanics?
• Q8: What research lines should be followed in structural mechanics education?

2. Structural Mechanics: The Author’s Perspective

This section provides an overview of the general approach to teaching the principles of structural mechanics, underscoring the importance of this area for several professions. The typical curricular layout for structural mechanics in undergraduate civil engineering programs is presented, along with the perceptions of undergraduate students, professors, and practitioners associated with structural mechanics. Some survey results are presented in word clouds. For these, it was necessary to carefully revise and eliminate some of the respondents’ contributions, as certain inputs introduced ambiguity in their interpretation. For example, when asked about their perceptions of structural mechanics courses, five students responded with “dynamic.” In this case, it was unclear whether they referred to the course content (e.g., dynamic response of an element) or the pedagogical approach used by their professors. This highlights the importance of developing skills in formulating and assessing qualitative research in engineering education.

Structural mechanics forms the basis of the structural thinking of civil engineers. The concept of structural thinking is introduced here to illustrate an engineer’s ability to understand how a structure responds under various loading conditions. It is important to note that a structure can be understood differently across various engineering disciplines. Figure 2 illustrates interpretations of structures in some related fields of civil engineering; interestingly, all of these systems can be analyzed using the foundational concepts and procedures of structural mechanics. At the undergraduate level, structures are assumed to exhibit linear and elastic behavior, and energy, flexibility, or stiffness-based methods are used to calculate the responses (displacements, internal forces, strains, and stresses) under static loads.

In Colombia, structural mechanics involves three sequential courses (Figure 3). The first, statics, introduces students to static equilibrium and its applications in solving basic and rigid structural systems. Then, in Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials or Mechanics of Solids), students are expected to consider the deformation capability of structures under a set of loads when solving problems involving hyperstatic systems. Laboratory sessions are typically included with this course to help students properly understand the mechanical phenomena. Finally, more complex and larger structures are analyzed in the structural analysis course, where analytical, numerical, and computational methods are explored primarily through the computer implementation of a matrix approach. In the universities involved in this study, and considering the country’s seismic hazard, a project involving the seismic analysis of a building using the Equivalent Lateral Force method is integrated. This project is sometimes continued in subsequent courses, such as structural dynamics or reinforced concrete design.

As seen in Figure 4, which summarizes the number of structural mechanics courses taught in 37 civil engineering programs in Colombia, half of the programs follow the three-course sequence described above. In programs with four courses, structural analysis is sometimes divided into two courses: the first is dedicated to classical analysis techniques, while the second focuses on matrix or finite element analysis (FEA). Alternatively, the three-course sequence precedes a course in structural dynamics. It is worth mentioning that only one program integrates mechanical concepts into two courses, whereas another program comprises six basic courses, including FEA and topics related to earthquake engineering.

For students, structural mechanics is commonly regarded as a challenging yet essential area in their development as civil engineers. This can be confirmed in the word cloud shown in Figure 5, which presents the opinions of 182 students from nine Colombian universities about their experiences in the respective courses. The students were asked to respond to the statement: “Use three words (or groups of words) to describe the perception of your learning experience when taking the fundamental courses in structural engineering: statics, strength of materials, and structural analysis.” The results, which are indicative, show that despite the perceived complexity, students recognize the importance of structural mechanics. For some, the courses present a positive challenge to their formation, requiring self-learning and involving non-disciplinary aspects such as motivation, ethical issues, and pedagogical considerations. Yet, the courses can be time-consuming for many and may sometimes evoke negative emotions. The above results underscore the need for more comprehensive and didactic approaches to teaching structural mechanics.

Given the perceived complexity of the subject, educators are encouraged to employ pedagogical strategies that enhance the teaching and learning process of structural mechanics. Figure 6 presents the responses of 33 Colombian professors to the prompt: “Identify up to four pedagogical strategies that you have implemented in undergraduate structural engineering courses (Statics, Mechanics of Materials, Structural Analysis) that facilitated the teaching-learning processes. Use only one sentence per suggestion”. As seen in the plot, three strategies (programming methods, lab work for structural concepts, and exposure to real-world scenarios) are preferred. Notably, the fourth strategy corresponds to assessment strategies that complement the learning process. The adoption of strategies related to resource utilization, including virtual and augmented reality, virtual resources, and media support, suggests that professors often cater to the visual learning styles of their students.

One key aspect of cohesively improving teaching practices in structural mechanics is sharing both successful and unsuccessful teaching experiences. This means that it is not sufficient for a professor to be provided with pedagogical development by the institution; it is also advisable to exchange experiences, monitor progress, and apply, interpret, and assess them. In this regard, Figure 7 presents the degree of dissemination of the pedagogical experiences of the interviewed Colombian professors. The fact that 70% of the respondents have communicated their work indicates an effort to apply or generate new pedagogical experiences. From the authors’ perspective, establishing the relationship between the strategy and its impact on students’ learning is not a simple task. Although many strategies have been developed worldwide, they are rarely compiled in journal publications, and their impact has not been systematically analyzed. This paper aims to provide a first step toward addressing this issue, based on the bibliometric analysis.

Another valuable perspective for the effective formulation of teaching strategies comes from practitioners and senior structural engineers. Hence, 28 senior structural engineers from different cities in Colombia were asked the following survey instruction: “Indicate four words (or groups of words) that reflect the required competencies in the field of structural engineering for an effective performance of a recently graduated civil engineer”. Their responses are shown in Figure 8. Regarding disciplinary competencies, the senior engineers expect young professionals to possess solid technical knowledge in mechanics and structural fundamentals, as well as the ability to engage in trans-disciplinary design. Proficiency in structural analysis software and the integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) is also recommended. However, several soft skills are equally desired in young professionals. As seen in Figure 8, senior engineers emphasize several non-disciplinary competencies—such as critical thinking, adaptability to change, commitment, effective teamwork and communication skills, and a strong disposition for continuous and self-directed learning—which should be explicitly integrated into the civil engineering curriculum.

The previous discussion highlights the need for stronger interconnections among the three key actors (students, academia, and industry) to cultivate the most capable structural engineers to address societal needs. These inputs not only contextualize this research but also provide the basis for discussing the responses to research questions Q1–Q8 introduced in Section 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Background and Methodology Framework

Bibliometric analysis has gained importance across many engineering fields as a tool to quantify, identify, and understand the volume of knowledge about a specific subject based on the analysis of metrics and trends. In this paper, the analysis conducted by a group of professors from various Colombian universities focused on the subject of trends in the teaching-learning process of structural mechanics in civil engineering programs. This research is carried out following the PRISMA methodology [22] to ensure a systematic approach to the selection and analysis of the literature. Despite advances in bibliometric research, each application contains particularities in each of the main stages defined by the PRISMA methodology. Thus, it was necessary to adapt some steps to the specific characteristics of structural mechanics education.

The research was based on four pillars [23]: (i) definition of the problem, (ii) data collection, (iii) analysis and visualization, and (iv) interpretation. Figure 9 presents the description of these pillars. The originality of this article, not identified in the reviewed literature, lies in its particular approach to teaching the three subjects included under the concept of structural mechanics. The Scopus database was selected to identify the sample of papers, which is one of the most widely used in civil engineering, not only for technical reports but also for specialized reviews [24,25,26]. Information analysis in Section 4 was carried out with the support of Bibliometrix v. 4.3.0 application [21], which has been widely employed in educational literature reviews [27,28,29,30,31]. This computational tool was also used to extract information from the collected papers and to generate visual content.

Two additional aspects were considered: performance analysis and science mapping, the latter serving as a complement. Interpretation of the results follows the guidelines proposed in [32] regarding scanning, sensing, and substantiating. Several guidelines illustrating good practices for performing bibliometric analysis have been reported in the literature [23,32,33]. In this regard, the strategies proposed by Mukherjee et al. [34] were examined. The recommendations by Romanelli et al. [35] were considered to address the different challenges encountered during the development of the research for the available paper sample.

3.2. Bibliometric Structure and Research Landscape

Figure 10 presents the procedure for selecting the sample papers used in the analysis, following the PRISMA guidelines. The inclusion criteria for selecting a paper were as follows:

• It must address a topic related to any of the three structural mechanics courses in undergraduate education (see Figure 3).
• It must be published in a scientific journal; no other publication types were considered.
• It must have been published between 2014 and 2023.
• It must be indexed in the Scopus database, thereby ensuring the journal’s inclusion in a recognized index.
• It must be written in English.

The review process began with the formulation of the search equation, which combined pedagogical terms (‘engineering education’, ‘teaching’, ‘learning’, and ’undergraduate’) with disciplinary terms commonly used in structural mechanics (‘structural analysis or structural matrix analysis’, ‘structural mechanics’, ’structural concepts’, ’engineering statics or statics’, and ’mechanics of materials or Mechanics of Solids or Strength of Materials). The equation was applied to the Scopus database using the Title–Abstract–Keywords fields, yielding 1335 records. Duplicates were removed, and the remaining documents were screened by title and abstract. Conference summaries, editorials, non-engineering education papers, and documents unrelated to structural mechanics were excluded. After this screening stage, 332 papers met the inclusion criteria and were retained for full analysis.

The authors selected only those papers from the initial sample that addressed the teaching–learning process in structural mechanics education. After this step, the number of papers was reduced from 332 to 113. Two additional steps were considered during the selection stage. First, the references of the reviewed papers were examined, which led to the inclusion of 17 additional papers on the subject that were found in Scopus. Second, 20 previously known papers, also indexed in Scopus, were added to the sample. A subsequent analysis of these papers revealed that the search equation was unable to identify them. Finally, a total of 150 articles are part of this research [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180]. The bibliometric analysis detailed in Section 4 was therefore conducted on this sample.

3.3. Description of the Analysis

The essence of a bibliometric analysis involves identifying the key questions to be answered regarding trends in structural mechanics education. These questions include general information about the paper sample (time span, number of sources, number of documents, among others). Such data allow for establishing the relationship between each paper and the structural mechanics courses to which they relate. In this research, we organized the questions defined in Section 1 into three main categories: basic information, research trends, and projective questions.

The basic questions aim to determine who is conducting research on the subject, which journals are preferred for publication, and how the number of publications has evolved over the last decade (see Questions Q1–Q3). The number of paper contributions to the sample was selected as the main indicator for inclusion in this question group. Questions Q4–Q6 seek to clarify the main research trends in structural mechanics education, enabling the formation of thematic categories. The analysis for this group was primarily supported by visual tools such as keyword word clouds, keyword co-occurrence diagrams, thematic maps, and contribution counts. Complementary categories were associated with each paper to facilitate the identification of information focused on specific pedagogical aspects, such as educational laboratory testing and problem-based learning.

Questions Q7 and Q8 introduce a reflective component to generate insights into the current state and emerging research lines in structural mechanics education. Rather than relying on indicators, the discussion for this question group is based on the information presented in Section 4 and, importantly, on our collective interpretation of the subject. Graphic resources are included to support the comprehension of the discussion. Finally, the implications of the findings for structural engineering education are articulated to foster deeper academic reflection within civil engineering curricula.

4. Bibliometric Analysis

4.1. General Information

Figure 11 summarizes the primary information extracted from the reviewed papers. A total of 45 sources are involved in the analysis, providing a total of 150 documents in the time span 2014–2023, as explained in the previous section. Structural mechanics education exhibits an annual growth rate of 4.31% during the study period, representing an increase compared to earlier years. Additional information on the paper sample is also presented. Despite numerous trials, the software was unable to extract the total number of references in the revised papers; therefore, this value was set to zero. It is worth noting that all the figures in this section were generated using the software Bibliometrix (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) [21].

Complementary information about the sample will be discussed in the following sections. It is worth noting that, as the research progressed, it became necessary to analyze the information manually in order to conduct a more detailed review. Additionally, it was necessary to correct some inaccuracies in the information obtained from the Scopus database, including errors in the assigned publication year for the paper, incorrect author or university identifications, and missing keywords. Such faults occurred mainly with the oldest papers. Moreover, the Journal of Civil Engineering Education did not provide the corresponding keywords for the papers in the sample. The authors emphasize the crucial importance of conducting a thorough and critical analysis of the information gathered about the topic under study.

A topic-based classification of the papers was conducted according to their areas of expertise, with the results summarized in

Table 1. Distribution of sampled papers by commonly offered structural mechanics courses in civil engineering curricula.

Topic	Contributions
Statics	[36,42,44,52,55,57,59,60,67,69,70,72,73,74,77,82,84,85,93,97,98,104,106,117,130,136,148,149,159,160,166,167,168,172,175,176]
Mechanics of Materials	[38,39,43,46,49,51,56,58,62,63,66,71,75,76,79,87,88,89,95,102,103,110,112,116,118,119,120,122,134,135,137,138,158,164,165,169,171,177,181,182]
Structural Analysis	[41,45,47,48,65,68,80,81,86,90,92,99,100,101,107,108,109,114,121,124,128,131,139,140,142,143,144,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,161,162,170,183,184]
Finite Element Analysis	[40,53,54,83,91,125,127,133,173,178,179,180]
Structural Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering	[61,64,78,111,115,145,146,147,157,163,185]
General	[37,94,96,105,113,123,126,129,132,141,174]

. This approach was designed to help readers locate information related to a specific course. Figure 12 presents the distribution of the paper sample across the courses related to structural mechanics in Colombian undergraduate programs, as defined in Section 2. Approximately three-quarters of the sample are related to general courses in engineering statics, mechanics of materials, and structural analysis. The remaining 26% is about other special subjects taught in undergraduate courses. For example, in some papers, the contribution to the understanding of Structural Mechanics is analyzed in courses such as Structural Dynamics or Earthquake Engineering. These topics are very relevant for countries located in earthquake-prone regions. Another special topic concerns the finite element method for structural analysis, which is commonly studied at the postgraduate level. In addition, the analysis of the information revealed that 47.0% of the research comes from civil engineering departments, while 22.7% comes from mechanical engineering, and 3.0% comes from architecture. Such results demonstrate that it is possible to promote structural mechanics teaching from various perspectives.

4.2. Q1: Who Are the Main Authors, Collaboration Networks, Institutions, and Countries Researching the Subject?

One key outcome from the bibliometric reviews is determining the authors with the highest number of publications on structural mechanics education in the analyzed period. In the sample of papers, there are 398 authors worldwide contributing to the topic.

Table 2. Fourteen main authors of the sampled papers and their affiliations.

Author	Affiliation	Contributions
Brown S.	Oregon State University	8
Barner M. S.	Oregon State University	4
Herman G. L.	California Polytechnic State University	4
Magana A. J.	Purdue Univerisity	4
Virgin L.	Duke University	4
Walsh Y.	Tecnológico de Costa Rica	4
Ahn B.	Iowa State University	3
Chacón R.	Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya	3
Delgado A.	Universidad de Sevilla	3
Ha O.	Oregon State University	3
Justo E.	Universidad de Sevilla	3
Monfort D.	Oregon State University	3
Johnson-Glauch N.	California Polytechnic State University	3
Zuo W.	Jilin University	3

presents the authors who contributed at least three papers to the sample, highlighting that seven authors were affiliated with universities in the United States. It was observed that Dr. Brown from Oregon State University (USA) has the highest number of contributions to the topic (eight papers). He was either the first or the corresponding author for all his papers [46,47,48,56,57,85,116,137]. Some of these papers are related to strategies for strengthening or assessing the understanding of concepts in statics and mechanics of materials. Dr. Brown has also applied the concept of inventory tests in engineering education [57,85,137]. This assessment strategy is not common among professors in structural engineering (including the authors of this paper).

The number of main authors in Table 2 represents 3.5% of the total authors, indicating that no additional authors have structural mechanics education as an active line of research with at least three papers. It is worth mentioning that in 35% of the paper sample, there is at least one author who has published at least five documents (papers or conference proceedings) on education-related topics. Google Scholar provided the latter information. One aspect to highlight is the contribution to a specialized topic from the main expertise of one author. For example, Dr. Virgin contributed to the application of manufacturing additives in structural mechanics education in topics such as structural dynamics [162], linear structural analysis [163], elastic buckling [164], and shear center [165]. Dr Chacón has used different digital tools for education, including digital fabrication [61,62] and virtual and augmented reality [63]. Dr. Zuo published a series of three papers [178,179,180] related to the development of educational software (EFESTS) for finite element analysis of trusses. These examples demonstrate that applying specialized expertise in structural engineering can enhance the teaching and learning of structural mechanics.

Concerning the research collaboration networks, four small clusters were identified (Figure 13). The main cluster is formed by Dr. Brown from Oregon State University, who interacts with at least five other authors. Dr. Magana, from Purdue University, also leads collaborative research. The clusters are generally composed of researchers from the same country, and no links are observed between clusters. The international co-authorship corresponds to approximately 14% of the sample, with 3.03 co-authors per paper. On the other hand, it is observed that single-authored papers correspond to 18% of the sample (27 papers). These results indicate the necessity of promoting interaction among researchers. Through this collaboration, teaching in structural mechanics may be enriched by different cultural perspectives to address an educational issue.

Because many authors appear only once in the sample, the lack of robust collaborative interactions poses a challenge to advancing global perspectives on structural mechanics education. It raises an important question: how can a collaborative network be designed to strengthen the global impact of structural mechanics education research? It is worth mentioning that several synergies are found; for example, innovations based on technology, where civil engineers interact with various specialties, such as mechanical or electrical engineering. Concerning the research group, it can be observed that 20% of the papers involved the participation of a specialist affiliated with a department or institution of education. The participation of these specialists facilitates the possibility of conducting research on education for professors in structural engineering with no previous experience in the subject. However, it would be valuable for any professor in structural mechanics to have the opportunity to be trained in research for education. In this way, it is possible to improve the educational practice of structural mechanics.

The third aspect of question Q1 refers to the university institutions from which the main contributions originated. A total of 149 universities were identified in the sample, with four papers [37,47,87,183] being co-authored by practitioners. The presence of industry representatives in education research is desirable to strengthen the relationship with academia and the education of structural engineers.

Table 3. Main institutions researching on structural mechanics education.

Journal	Country	# Papers	First Author	# Researchers
Oregon State University	USA	9	9	13
Purdue University	USA	8	5	15
Iowa State University	USA	5	3	6
Virginia Tech	USA	5	3	5
California Polytechnic State University	USA	4	2	2
California State University	USA	4	4	3
Duke University	USA	4	4	1
Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya	Spain	4	3	7
University of California	USA	4	3	6

presents the universities that contribute at least four different papers, achieving 31% of participation in the sample. This table also shows the number of papers where a researcher from the university is the first author and the number of researchers from this university. In most cases, the universities in Table 3 correspond to publications led by a professor from that institution. Similar results were found when the selection criterion was based on the corresponding author. One particular case occurs with Duke University, where all the contributions come from a single author [162,163,164,165]. A total of 128 universities present one contribution to the paper sample, which would indicate that there exists motivation for contributing to the education in structural mechanics. On the other hand, it can be observed that Oregon State University and Purdue University have a high number of contributors with at least one paper. It is important to note that engineering education departments at these universities could streamline research while encouraging innovation. This, understandably, is not the rule for many universities.

Table 4. Top ten countries represented by the first authors of the sampled papers.

Country	Number of Contributions	Number of First Authors
USA	73	64
China	15	13
Spain	12	11
Brazil	6	5
Colombia	6	6
United Kingdom	6	5
Italy	5	4
Australia	5	5
India	5	5
Turkey	4	3

presents the countries with the most contributions to the paper sample. Papers whose authors are affiliated with universities in the United States represent 43% of the contributions. A similar result is found when analyzing the countries of the first author. Only 21 papers present international collaboration, with a maximum of four countries involved in a single paper (see reference [37]). Figure 14 allows for a visual understanding of the spatial distribution of the papers around the world, highlighting the contributions from the USA, China, and Spain. Colombia and Brazil contribute to South America. The intensity of the blue color represents the relative level of contributions made by each country. The contributions from Colombia could be related to those presented in Figure 7. In addition, Figure 15 shows that there is continuous growth in publications on the subject in the USA. Although interest is growing in Brazil, China, and Colombia, publication rates remain modest. This may reflect limited experience publishing in the field of educational research. To make the number of articles published by country more comparable, the authors of this work suggest averaging this value in relation to the number of structural engineering professors in each country. In this way, it is recommended to consult databases from UNESCO, OECD, the World Bank, or the specific higher education authorities of each country.

4.3. Q2: What Are the Leading Journals for Publications on This Subject?

Table 5. Ten Main Journals of information of the sampled papers.

Journal	Contributions	Quartil
Computer Applications in Engineering Education	28	Q1
Journal of Civil Engineering Education	18	Q2
International Journal of Engineering Education	18	Q2
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering	14	Q4
Journal of Engineering Education	9	Q1
Advances in Engineering Education	7	Q2
European Journal of Engineering Education	7	Q1
Journal of Engineering Education Transformations	4	Q4
Engineering Structures	3	Q1
Journal of Architectural Engineering	3	Q3

shows the leading journals in which research related to structural mechanics education is published. The ten sources correspond mainly to Scopus Quartile 1 and 2 journals and account for 70% of the analyzed articles. Seven out of ten journals are associated with engineering education, revealing several significant facts. There is only one journal specifically focused on civil engineering education, which highlights the need for further research in this field. The identified journal corresponds to the Journal of Civil Engineering Education, formerly named the Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. It can be seen that the journal Computer Applications in Engineering Education leads with approximately 19% of the publications analyzed. This is consistent with the fact that studies on the use of computers during the teaching process represent a trending topic, as shown in the literature [41,53,54]. In addition to the previous findings, three journals with a primary scope different from engineering education are included: International Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Structures, and Journal of Architectural Engineering. The journal Engineering Structures promotes publications on research about advances in structural engineering, without explicitly including in its scope any subject related to education in structural engineering. Although the International Journal of Mechanical Engineering focuses on mechanical engineering, it also features publications on the teaching of structural mechanics, a topic common to both civil and mechanical engineering. It is worth mentioning that the quartile for each journal was related to the most similar area.

Based on the above discussion, and considering that the paper sample includes 150 papers over a time span of 10 years, it is worth asking: would it be necessary to suggest the creation of new specialized journals on civil engineering education that contribute to consolidating research on this subject? The authors of this research consider that it is necessary for researchers to have a smaller number of journals specialized in civil engineering education in order to concentrate and exchange the available information. The above suggestion was based on the complexity of teaching in these fields, as well as the implications and responsibilities that future engineers and teachers may encounter in both education and the professional practice of civil engineering.

4.4. Q3: Is Research on This Subject Showing an Increasing Trend?

Figure 16 presents the annual scientific production on structural mechanics education for the sample of papers. With a mean annual growth rate of 4.3%, there appears to be a modest increase in the number of publications on the subject throughout the period. However, the number of publications is in agreement with the numbers reported in other research related to education in civil engineering published in recent years, such as [16,17]. The graph shows that, in the recent past, the year 2022 experienced the largest decline in the number of publications. This decline can probably be attributed to the emergence of COVID-19 and the time required by the editors for article evaluation. During 2024, at least 18 papers on structural mechanics education were published [186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203]. These results indicate that the publication trend in this area remains active; nevertheless, a further increase in the number of papers can be expected as the field achieves greater consolidation.

4.5. Q4: Are the Keywords Adequately Defined?

The definition of keywords for a research paper plays a very important role in the consolidation of a field of knowledge, as it allows researchers to focus on what is being studied in the subject.

Table 6. Most relevant keywords identified across the sampled papers.

Keyword	Number of Contributions
Engineering Education	28
Statics	18
Structural Analysis	14
Active Learning	10
Structural Engineering	9
Mechanics of Materials	8
Education	7
Engineering Mechanics	7
Structural Dynamics	4
Augmented Reality	3

presents the main keywords related to structural mechanics education. In the sample of papers, two groups of keywords can be identified: those related to the disciplinary field (structural engineering) and those related to education. In the first case, the main keywords correspond to the three courses of structural mechanics: statics, mechanics of materials, and structural analysis. Additionally, keywords are related to specific subjects in the different courses, such as Mohr’s circle [58], shear center location [165], or free body diagram [70]. The second type concerns aspects of education, with active learning and augmented reality being the most commonly used keywords in this group. Despite the expression “engineering education” being a linking term for the disciplinary and pedagogical aspects, it only appears in 28 papers. As shown in Table 6, only nine articles include the keyword structural engineering, while only seven include the word education.

A broader perspective on the keywords in the paper sample can be taken from the word cloud presented in Figure 17. The figure presents a variety of aspects in which contributions to structural mechanics education can be developed. Statics is the most commonly used keyword, which may be associated with the necessity for a structural engineer to understand the principles of equilibrium of structures under different loads. Then, the following keyword is the mechanics of materials. In contrast, the word cloud seems to indicate that structural mechanics education is moving toward active learning-based methodologies. Another term refers to collaborative learning, problem-based learning, and assessment tools, among others. Augmented reality and 3D printing are technologies that contribute to the understanding of structural concepts through physical and virtual models.

Figure 18 presents the co-occurrence network of keywords in the sample papers, from which three types of clusters are identified. Clear linkages between technical and pedagogical concepts appear in the main clusters, such as those connecting engineering education with structural analysis or statics with concept inventories. In addition, several clusters focus exclusively on technical aspects, including finite element software, truss structures, and object-oriented programming. Two pedagogically oriented keywords—conceptual change and problem solving—also emerge as particularly influential. As the field continues to mature, the establishment of a consistent and standardized set of keywords becomes essential for improving information retrieval and strengthening the coherence of future research.

4.6. Q5: What Are the Main Topics of Research?

It is possible to identify the main topics being researched in the paper sample from the thematic map shown in Figure 19. The map indicates that active and problem-based learning is at the center of the studies. At the center of the figure, the necessity of active learning can be found. In the Motor Themes quadrant, the topics of mechanics, pedagogy, performance, undergraduate education, the constant comparative method, and engineering graphics are positioned at the highest level, indicating a well-established and high level of development. Topics with slightly lower development and relevance include education, structural dynamics, and 3D printing. As indicated previously, the mechanics of materials have received attention for the application of new pedagogical strategies due to their inherent complexity. The subjects Educational software, MATLAB ^® program (MATLAB Online (Basic), Release R2025b Update 2 (25.2.0.3055257), MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA, 2025. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab-online.html (accessed on 30 October 2025)), and matrix structural analysis are specialized or niche themes; they are well-developed but have few global connections. Matlab^® remains a common computational resource for developing educational software, which explains its placement in the emerging/declining quadrant. However, programming languages such as Python (Python (version 3.12.2), Python Software Foundation, Wilmington, DE, USA, 2025, available online: https://www.python.org (accessed on 30 October 2025)), particularly when coupled with open-access tools, increasingly offer attractive alternatives for structural mechanics courses.

On the other hand, the subjects of collaborative learning and conceptual change represent areas that have been little explored, are in an initial state of development, or have low relevance. This could be due to the necessity of training in educational themes for structural engineers. The subjects of statics, engineering mechanics, conceptual learning, and, at a lower level, structural engineering, augmented reality, and design are central themes in the sample; however, they require greater cohesion and internal development. Two groups of topics in the figure are identified as being close to the neutral axis of density. One of them, the active learning problem, has zero relevance, while the other, engineering education FEA and FEM, has slightly more relevance. This position can be interpreted as the representation of topics that are still underdeveloped, with normal to moderately high relevance. Such cohesion could be achieved in the manner in which the field of structural mechanics education consolidates.

The authors defined 17 pedagogical categories based on their experience and classified each paper according to its primary contribution.

Table 7. Classification of the sampled papers based on their main pedagogical strategy.

Pedagogical Category	Number of Contributions	References
Use of Structural Analysis Software	24	[40,66,78,79,92,95,102,103,108,111,120,121,122,125,127,128,139,146,155,178,179,180,184,185]
Educational Laboratory Testing	12	[49,61,62,64,71,75,83,119,145,157,158,182]
Virtual and Augmented Reality	12	[61,76,81,82,90,91,147,156,166,167,168,175]
Physical Models	12	[68,87,96,101,104,107,126,144,162,163,164,165]
Person-centered learning	12	[45,57,60,73,93,94,110,112,115,123,132]
Problem-based learning	11	[37,47,97,98,99,100,106,113,148,181,183]
Programming-based learning	10	[41,53,54,109,131,133,141,151,173,176]
Virtual Resources	9	[36,38,58,118,124,136,140,152,161]
Conceptual pedagogical initiatives	9	[46,59,69,70,77,114,116,117,149]
Assessment Strategies	8	[42,43,44,52,85,86,137,150]
Collaborative Learning	6	[39,50,55,105,129,142]
Real cases-based learning	5	[48,80,134,143,153]
Flipped Learning	5	[65,130,154,171,172]
Non-traditional Theoretical Approach	4	[51,135,138,170]
Writing	3	[72,160,169]
Media support	2	[67,89]
Mathematical Resources	2	[74,88]

presents the results of this classification, indicating both the references assigned to each category and the number of papers per category. It highlights the number of contributions to person-centered learning, which includes aspects of inclusivity and diversity in the classroom [60]. Problem-based learning and real case-based learning contribute to 16 papers, demonstrating the importance of these strategies in the formation of structural principles. The role of assessment strategies is gaining importance as part of the formative process for civil engineers. Few papers attempt to include non-traditional theoretical approaches in the content of the structural mechanics courses, such as the references [51,135]. It is curious that only two papers aimed at strengthening students’ mathematical foundations exist. From the authors’ experience, this is a critical subject in education today. One special subject of attention refers to writing, an ability that every professional needs to develop to communicate effectively with others. It was not a simple task to classify four papers dealing with the development of spatial ability [84], interdisciplinary work [159], curriculum development [174], and the teaching reform of a course [177]. Finally, the classification process also made it possible to identify additional relevant topics beyond those shown in Figure 19, such as flipped learning.

4.7. Q6: What Are the Most Cited Articles on the Subject?

The ten most cited papers on structural mechanics education found in Scopus up to 28 November 2024, are presented in

Table 8. Ten most cited papers up to 28 November 2024.

Authors	Year	Journal	Subject	Number of Citations
Fogarty [76]	2017	Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.	Virtual and Augmented Reality	64
Francois S. [78]	2021	Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ.	Use of Structural Analysis Software	40
Atadero et al. [42]	2015	J. Eng. Educ	Assessment Strategies	37
Ha O. [84]	2016	Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.	Spatial Ability	36
Senatore G. [139]	2015	CAD. Comput. Aided Des.	Use of Structural Analysis Software	36
McCrum DP. [113]	2017	Eur. J. Eng. Educ.	Problem-based learning	36
Hashim et al. [88]	2021	Indonesian Journal of Science and Tech	Mathematical Resources	34
Justo E. [99]	2015	Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract.	Problem-based learning	26
Hu [90]	2021	Adv. Eng. Informatics	Virtual and Augmented Reality	26
Yan J. [172]	2018	Int. J. Eng. Educ.	Flipped Learning	25

. The most cited articles are concentrated in various journals, demonstrating that there is a wide range of documents and editorials that consider the topics of interest. The work by Fogarty et al. [76], published in 2017, is the most cited. This paper focuses on the impact of virtual reality tools on the understanding of the buckling phenomenon. The presence of other research related to augmented reality on the list of the most cited papers reflects the attention this subject has gained in the last decade. Concerning the use of structural analysis software, Francois et al. [78] developed a Matlab-based computational toolbox, Stabil, to help students better comprehend the principles of static and dynamic response in structural systems through interactive simulations. This type of contribution is accompanied by a pedagogical discussion about how to orient the learning process for students. Two papers are related to implementing problem-based learning in the elaboration of structural models for analysis and design [99,113]. It is observed that the least cited papers in Table 8 have at least 25 citations. The most cited paper on assessment strategies has 37 citations, which shows the importance of the topic. Other cited publications cover different topics, including structural analysis software and problem-based learning.

Table 9. Most cited countries on the sampled papers.

Journal	Number of Citations by Country
USA	182
Spain	69
United Kingdom	66
Italy	44
Belgium	42
Malaysia	39
Korea	37
Australia	26
Mexico	22
Greece	12

lists the countries of origin of the first authors whose papers on structural mechanics education have received the highest number of citations. In relation to these results, the most cited papers originated from the USA and Spain, which correlate well with the list of countries with higher contributions shown in Table 9. Interestingly, five countries in Table 9 (A, B, C, D, and D) are not included in Table 4.

5. Discussion

5.1. Q7: What Does the Evidence from the Analyzed Research Tell Us About the Education of Structural Mechanics?

Structural mechanics plays a very important role in the education of structural engineers, as it forms the foundation of their professional practice. However, it is often perceived as a difficult subject, as evidenced by the interviewed students (see Figure 5). Both aspects motivate the development of pedagogical strategies to improve the teaching–learning process and invite further educational research that can contribute to global progress in this field.

The evidence found in the paper sample suggests that structural mechanics education is a field in consolidation. This trend is also visible in Figure 16, which shows a marked increase in publications over the last decade. The number of papers published in the last decade (150), involving 398 authors from 31 countries, further illustrates this growth. Established education researchers are among these authors. Publication in 45 different sources highlighted the variety of publication venues. It is also worth noting that additional contributions to structural mechanics education can be found in conference proceedings and in languages other than English, such as Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Italian.

The sample revealed 20 research topics from a topical perspective. By far, the most common topic is the Use of Structural Analysis Software, addressed in 24 articles (Table 7). This finding also closely aligns with the results in Figure 6, where professors from Colombian universities reported the Use of Structural Analysis Software as one of the most frequently employed pedagogical tools. Although software use is widely adopted and valued as a pedagogical tool, senior structural engineers in professional practice do not value proficiency in operating the software itself as highly; instead, they emphasize mastery of fundamental structural concepts, critical thinking, ethics, communication, and problem-solving skills, among others (Figure 8).

The next most frequent research topics are in Table 7: Educational Laboratory Testing (12), Virtual and Augmented Reality (12), Physical Models (12), and Person-centered Learning (12), followed closely by Problem-based Learning (11), Programming-based Learning (11), and others. These topics, like the most frequent one (Use of Structural Analysis Software), are consistent with the main pedagogical strategies mentioned by professors from Colombian universities (Figure 6).

In a society that places an increasing emphasis on the teaching–learning process, the potential to make contributions from classroom practice is highly relevant. In this sense, the authors propose the concept of Structural Engineering Thinking (Str-Eng-Th) as the set of knowledge and abilities that structural engineers should acquire for the proper exercise of their profession, as illustrated in Figure 20. This concept can serve as a basis for rethinking the teaching of structural mechanics. The concept will be further elaborated in future work.

The papers in the sample present a wide range of contributions to structural mechanics education that leverage technological resources; both dimensions should work together. Technological developments play an important role in improving the teaching–learning process. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) has facilitated the use of virtual and augmented models [63], interactive resources [81], virtual laboratories [95], and digital fabrication [61], among others. Figure 21 schematically illustrates how these technologies are related to structural mechanics education. For example, Haritos [87] offers an interesting contribution to innovation in hands-on experiential learning, and the overall evidence shows a growing interest in virtual resources, such as augmented reality and virtual reality.

Integrating these technologies requires not only specific technical expertise but also knowledge of how to design pedagogical experiences that effectively incorporate them to enhance student learning. Therefore, institutional initiatives are desirable to support the pedagogical training of university professors. Technology integration can also enable collaborative work among professors with complementary skills, such as a specialist in educational technology and another in pedagogy or structural engineering. One noteworthy observation is that no research in the paper sample (2014–2023) has addressed the use of generative artificial intelligence in structural mechanics education. This subject is expected to become very important in the coming years. The present authors already use some of these tools, but they have not yet initiated a systematic approach to measure their impact on classroom use.

Regarding the pedagogical aspects of the paper sample, the presence of modern educational approaches is evident, including real-case-based learning, problem-based learning, flipped learning, collaborative learning, and conceptually oriented pedagogical initiatives. There are also experiences that focus on the role of assessment in the classroom, a topic that warrants further exploration. The evolution of structural mechanics education has progressively built bridges between its historical roots and contemporary approaches, as schematically represented in Figure 22.

Within the sample, 91 papers report classroom-based experiences, whereas 57 research papers adopt a broader or more general perspective. A significant number of contributions describe educational computational tools without providing much detail on how the tools are implemented in the classroom, creating an opportunity for more comprehensive reporting. Also important is the need for professors to develop qualitative research competencies, thereby enabling richer teaching insights that explicitly incorporate students’ voices. There is also a clear need to increase collaborative research between engineering and education experts. Only a few papers report experiences that involve institutions from different countries; exploring how the same educational intervention works across diverse contexts would be valuable.

The literature on structural mechanics education is sparse and fragmented, making it difficult to retrieve relevant information from databases. Effective retrieval requires an understanding of how disciplinary and educational terms interact in keyword searches. To address this, the authors propose a standardized framework consisting of five keywords for structural mechanics education research. At least three items should always be included: engineering education, structural mechanics, and the name of the course. The remaining two should refer to one disciplinary aspect and one pedagogical aspect (Table 7). This structure facilitates the concentration and retrieval of results, enabling other institutions to access relevant research more efficiently, as schematically illustrated in Figure 23. For example, applying the framework for defining the keywords of reference [49] would yield the following set: engineering education, structural mechanics, mechanics of materials, educational laboratory testing, and torsion. It should be noted that some terms, such as learning or structural analysis, may overlap with other fields and make retrieval more difficult.

Another relevant aspect concerns the composition of research teams. It is noteworthy that 19% of the papers were authored by a single researcher, whereas 31% involved four or more authors. The reasons for these differences are not straightforward to interpret; however, understanding them could shed light on how educational research is organized and conducted. Identifying the specific roles of the authors—whether related to pedagogy, disciplinary expertise, or methodological design—provides valuable insight into the collaborative processes behind the studies. Such knowledge could enhance transparency, foster more effective interdisciplinary partnerships, and ultimately strengthen the quality of future educational research.

Establishing both local and international perspectives is essential for fostering global integration on a topic that is relevant everywhere. In the paper sample, only 23 studies involved research teams affiliated with institutions from two or more countries. However, in most of these cases, the students who participated in the educational interventions came from a single university. Bringing together the perspectives of professors from diverse contexts enables a more comprehensive construction of knowledge and encourages deeper reflection on the processes involved in structural mechanics education. This paper exemplifies such a plural vision, aiming to integrate diverse perspectives. Figure 24 illustrates how structural mechanics education may encounter different needs in various countries, using typical houses as examples. This demonstrates that local factors should be considered when addressing these challenges.

Thus far, there has been no explicit discussion on how to evaluate the success of new pedagogical methods in structural mechanics. Figure 25 presents a graphical description of a group of students using new technologies in the structural engineering classroom. Such spaces should implement and evaluate the feasibility and impact of pedagogical proposals. In the paper sample, 89 contributions included descriptions of the achievements obtained from applying new pedagogical strategies. Assessment techniques encompass both quantitative and qualitative approaches, supported by statistical analysis, as illustrated in [39,42,43,45,52]. This highlights the need for training in statistics and research methods for those engaged in educational research. The students in the studies mostly originated from research institutions. Within the sample, only one paper included students’ opinions from two different countries [73]. It is also important to emphasize that educational research should adhere to ethical standards, given the direct interaction with students. Professors should, therefore, be prepared to follow the ethical guidelines defined by their universities and the relevant institutional review processes.

Research findings also point to the need for new activities. These additional activities complemented the analysis and generally required manual review, as the database did not contain such detailed information. For instance, it was necessary to determine whether at least one author of each paper had an established track record in education research. To this end, all authors were examined in Google Scholar. It was also necessary to classify the papers according to the structural mechanics course, producing information that could be useful for instructors. Figure 26 shows the evolving universe of variables considered in the study. This evolution reflects the need to remain open to new information. Future research could utilize AI to help identify clusters and interpret data, especially with survey questions.

To conclude this section, several open questions could not be answered in this investigation but deserve further study:

• What proportion of professors in the sample have received formal pedagogical training?
• What strategies do universities use to promote and support pedagogical training for their professors?
• Is there evidence that pedagogically trained professors are more effective in improving student learning outcomes?
• Is it necessary to assess impacts at a global level, or is locally focused research sufficient?

5.2. Q8: What Would Be the Research Lines to Follow in Structural Mechanics Education?

The completion of this work revealed several challenges that can guide future studies on structural mechanics education. We outlined the main research lines and related questions in Figure 27, which summarizes these challenges.

The first issue concerns the need for a stronger sustainability perspective in civil engineering education and how the profession is already being transformed by this requirement. Due to the prevalence of sustainability in many program profiles, it should be integrated into structural mechanics instruction. As artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent, it is essential to consider the necessary curriculum adjustments, the applications of these technologies to improve learning, and the ethical parameters governing their implementation.

A further critical challenge is the necessity of methodologies to properly evaluate the viability and consequences of proposed instructional approaches. Innovation in education requires evaluating the effects of modern pedagogical approaches, such as project-based, experiential, and online learning. For example, the use of physical resources, such as the Kit Mola^® or similar tools, can facilitate the understanding of structural concepts. This raises further questions: what are the minimum structural competencies that civil engineering graduates should achieve? Which contents within structural mechanics instruction could be reconsidered or removed to enhance the coherence, relevance, and overall effectiveness of the curriculum? What instructional approaches are best suited for teaching mathematical competencies in the digital era? How should the abstraction process be developed for two- and three-dimensional problems within a digital environment?

An additional consideration involves integrating digital resources to guarantee equitable student access. Given the current deep integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in structural engineering practice, establishing and agreeing on the digital competencies for students has become essential. The central role of BIM also implies a need to strengthen the integration of structural engineers with other disciplines from the early stages of their education.

Ultimately, these future directions should be considered within a sustainability framework, which presents the challenge of integrating these aspects into the curriculum cohesively. The challenges highlighted here are only a subset of the many possibilities for future work, but they illustrate that there is much to discuss and investigate in structural mechanics education.

5.3. Implications of the Findings for Structural Engineering Education

The results of this investigation have several implications for the instruction of structural engineering. First, it contributes to the consolidation of structural mechanics education as a research field, together with the diverse topics identified, suggesting that curricula should more deliberately integrate active and technology-enhanced learning strategies, such as laboratory testing, virtual and augmented reality, and programming-based learning. Integration of these strategies with the suggested structural engineering approach can ensure that technological tools reinforce rather than replace the understanding of fundamental concepts.

Secondly, the observed shortcomings in reporting classroom implementation, the utilization of qualitative methods, and interdisciplinary collaboration suggest the need for structured pedagogical and research training for structural engineering faculty. Universities should promote the formation of multidisciplinary teams that incorporate expertise in structural engineering, education, and research methodology. This would improve the design, assessment, and dissemination of teaching innovations.

Third, the proposed keyword framework and the emphasis on local–global perspectives highlight the importance of building a more visible and connected community of practice in structural mechanics education. Better indexing of research, along with more international collaborations, would facilitate knowledge transfer between institutions and contexts, supporting curriculum reforms that incorporate sustainability, digitization, and artificial intelligence in a coherent and ethically grounded manner.

Given these implications, several recommendations are pertinent to the faculties of engineering that offer civil engineering programs:

• Define a shared vision of structural engineering thinking: Explicitly articulate the set of disciplinary and transversal competencies that graduates should achieve in structural mechanics, and map these outcomes across the curriculum.
• Invest in pedagogical development for structural mechanics instructors: This involves offering sustained programs in university teaching, educational research methodologies, and assessment design, supported by institutional incentives for faculty participation. In addition, it is essential to promote educational innovation projects and develop the competencies required to build and strengthen communities of practice focused on improving teaching and learning in this field.
• Support interdisciplinary teaching and research teams: Develop the appropriate framework encompassing time, recognition, and funding to encourage collaboration amongst structural engineers, education specialists, and experts in educational technology and statistics.
• Provide and maintain educational technology and laboratory infrastructure: Allocate resources for physical models, experimental laboratories, virtual and augmented reality, BIM platforms, programming environments, and other digital tools. These elements should be incorporated into thoughtfully planned learning activities.
• Establish guidelines for the ethical and effective use of artificial intelligence: Create institutional policies and instructional guidelines that will assist educators and students in the application of generative AI and related technologies to enrich the educational process, while concurrently managing the challenges of integrity, bias, and transparency.
• Recognize and reward educational innovation and scholarship: By incorporating teaching innovation, curriculum development, and publications in engineering education into promotion and evaluation criteria, educational research can be valued equally with disciplinary research.
• Promote international and inter-institutional collaboration: Encourage joint courses, comparative studies, and shared projects in structural mechanics education across universities and countries to test the transferability of pedagogical approaches to different contexts.
• Improve the visibility and retrievability of educational research: Encourage the systematic use of structured keywords (e.g., the proposed five-keyword framework) and support institutional repositories that make educational studies in structural mechanics more accessible to the community.

6. Conclusions

This research carried out a bibliometric analysis of structural mechanics education from 2014 to 2023, complemented by insights from Colombian professors, students, and senior engineers. The results reveal a wide dispersion of publications, constraints on collaboration networks, and the absence of standardized keyword definitions, all of which limit the consolidation and advancement of knowledge in the field.

The main conclusions are as follows:

• At least four contributions are documented in the analyzed sample by six authors. Dr. Brown stands out as the leading researcher in this area, with eight contributions to date. A significant proportion of the researchers are affiliated with institutions in the United States. Strengthening collaborative networks remains an urgent need.
• The leading journals in this domain are Computer Applications in Engineering Education and the Journal of Civil Engineering Education, reflecting a sustained interest in the topic. Only a small number of articles have been published in non-educational journals.
• In the last two years, at least 20 papers have been published on structural mechanics education, demonstrating the scientific community’s interest in the subject. However, the annual growth rate of scientific production remains relatively low. It is expected that the number of publications will increase as the field of research becomes more consolidated.
• Keyword definition represents an important challenge for effective information retrieval. “Engineering education” emerges as the most relevant keyword in the sample. This study introduces a keyword-definition strategy applicable to engineering education—particularly in relation to structural mechanics, pedagogy, technical aspects, and structural mechanics courses.
• The primary research areas identified include structural analysis software and educational laboratory-testing applications. Digital tools play a crucial role in the training of civil engineers, and experiential learning continues to attract considerable attention.
• The most frequently cited papers address multiple dimensions of the field, including problem-based learning, among other instructional approaches.
• The reviewed publications underscore key issues: the need for a clearer articulation of structural engineering thinking, an increasing tendency to incorporate modern pedagogical approaches, a persistent lack of cohesion across the literature, and the importance of integrating more global perspectives into research and practice.
• Eight central research themes were identified: sustainability, educational research, transversal skills, digital resources, artificial intelligence, educational innovation, subject-specific competencies, and digital competencies.

Ultimately, advancing structural mechanics education requires the development of a global community of practice capable of sharing pedagogical experiences, establishing common research lines, and integrating sustainability, digital transformation, and emerging technologies into the curriculum for future civil engineers.