2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Understanding the types and causes of student errors in Statics can provide valuable insight into both conceptual and procedural challenges undergraduate students face in foundational engineering courses. Statics is one of the first engineering courses that students take which requires students to apply their math and science backgrounds including geometry, modeling, and equilibrium concepts to new systems along with maintaining procedural consistency when applying their problem solving skills. Students frequently make recurring mistakes on Statics exams that can reveal underlying patterns of deficiency in certain engineering skills. This paper investigates student errors in Statics exams across multiple instructors and course structures to identify, categorize, and measure the common patterns and trends that most inhibit student growth.
Data was collected from student exam submissions for two instructors over multiple semesters that represent a range of problem types and instructional approaches. The most frequent recurring errors were broadly classified as either conceptual or procedural. Conceptual errors are those relating to fundamental understanding of underlying principles such as the incorrect modeling of supports, the incorrect representation of equivalent force systems, or the incorrect manipulation of three-dimensional vectors. Procedural errors are those that involve improperly applying basic solution steps such as calculation errors, unit mistakes, or incorrect usage of formulas. The data was further analyzed to quantify the frequency and distribution of each error type across the sample space within and across exams, and the results were compared to students’ final course grades to evaluate relationships between error patterns and overall course performance.
Preliminary findings suggest that conceptual errors are more strongly correlated with lower course performance and tend to persist throughout the semester, even after multiple exposures to similar problem types. Procedural errors, while common early in the course, appear to lessen with repeated practice and feedback. The results of this analysis have implications for assessment design, grading practices, and targeted feedback strategies. By understanding not just whether students reach a correct solution, but also how they approach it, instructors can use systematic error analysis to identify persistent misconceptions and better support students, particularly those with recurring conceptual errors.