This evidence-based practice paper explores the use of a physical beam model and an accompanying spreadsheet that plots deflection, slope, shear, moment, and loading diagrams as teaching tools. These tools were used to reinforce engineering theory as part of a second year civil engineering statics and solid mechanics course. The models consisted of three beams of known cross-section and stiffness, two supports which could be altered to provide clamped or simple support, and two dial gauges to measure beam deflection, all of which could be affixed to a base delineated with markings to quantify the distances between individual model components. Steel weights could be placed at any portion along the beam to apply vertical point loads to the beam. The physical model was accompanied by an electronic spreadsheet that back-calculated diagrams for slope, curvature, shear, moment, and loading. This was done based on the beam geometry, Young’s modulus, and boundary conditions, as well as the measured deflections at the loaded points. In the first of two exercises students examined clamped, simple, and free boundary conditions. They also observed linearity between loading and deflection, and used statics to calculate shear and moment diagrams. Students compared their calculations and plotted diagrams with a spreadsheet that plotted a full set of beam diagrams. The goal of this exercise was to encourage students to start thinking about the notion that deflection, slope, and curvature are related to loading and boundary conditions. In a second session, after the students had been taught methods for calculating deflections in statically determinate beams, they examined model beams with various strategic boundary conditions and load patterns, looking for physical manifestations of deflection, slope, and curvature (moment) within those beams. As part of this exercise, students chose a particular beam design and loading, and used a version of the spreadsheet that could plot all of the beam diagrams based on geometric and boundary condition information and measured deflections at the loaded points. By comparing their model beam with the spreadsheet diagrams, students were able to make and strengthen their connections between mathematical, visual, and kinesthetic representations of beam bending. After each exercise, students were asked to provide written feedback on the effectiveness of the exercise through questions such as: “What are three specific things you learned about beams today?”, “Which observations were unexpected or in conflict with your intuition?”, and “How did the physical model and spreadsheet enable you to better understand the operation of beams?” The students noted that the exercise helped them understand how the different support conditions, material properties, and applied loads affect the deflection of the beam. They also stated that the spreadsheet helped them understand the relationship between deflection, slope, and curvature. After changing the support conditions of the beam, the students mentioned that some of their observed beam deflections conflicted with their intuition, which made them question why the beam behaved this way. This exercise helped the students think about how the theory relates to actual beam behavior and vice-versa. Introduction Traditionally, engineering lectures have been designed to deliver large amounts of theoretical content to students. The students have then been given written problems to solve using this content. While this method has had success in the past, it has been suggested that incorporating aspects of active learning into these lectures would help to increase understanding and knowledge retention, and to promote knowledge synthesis in students (1). The University of Waterloo’s Centre for Teaching Excellence and the Engineering Ideas Clinic advocate the “intentional and reflective learning from experience” by students in lectures. This is commonly known as experiential learning (2; 3; 4). This paper presents the findings of a pilot study into the use of bending beam models in a secondyear engineering course. The activity was conceived with the intention of improving the understanding of the second-year engineering students in the area of beam bending. This included drawing connections between physical deflections and their corresponding internal bending moments and shear forces. The study used the models as a means to incorporate inductive and experiential learning into a typical undergraduate engineering course. Overview of the Use of Models in Student Learning The use of models to teach engineering concepts can be incorporated into a form of inductive education. In inductive education, an instructor will first introduce problems or case studies to students and then introduce and explain theories and tools which can be used to solve the problems. The goal of this education type is to provide meaningful context to students prior to delivering the related theory which can provide motivation. “You’ll need this for the exam” or “you’ll need this in your career” may not provide sufficient motivation to engage the students in learning the theories taught (5). The models can be used to illustrate real-world engineering problems in order to provide context to the students. Ambrose et al. suggest that providing students with tasks which authentically replicate or simulate real-world applications of the learning can increase the learning motivation of students (6). The use of models could help in the development of deep conceptual understanding, which is a prerequisite for developing expertise in a subject. The models provide a means through which the students can interactively engage with the subject material being taught (7). In addition to the inductive teaching opportunity that models provide, they also can serve as a differentiated style through which to teach engineering theory. There is often a mismatch between the learning styles of some engineering students and the traditional teaching styles of engineering professors (8). Also, instructors who provide accommodation for both extremities of learning styles (theoretical, fact based, abstract, intuitive and auditory versus practical, visual and engaging) often create an optimal environment for most, if not all, of the students to learn. It has been recommended that instructors should incorporate hands-on, practical models and examples to support and complement the traditional style of teaching facts and abstract engineering concepts and ideas to aid the learning process of the students (9). The incorporation of models into engineering education can be described as a form of experiential learning which aims to improve the perceptual learning of engineering design concepts (10). Learning is defined as the process of transforming experience into its objective and subjective forms in order to create knowledge (11). In this circumstance, the beam models show the reactions of structural members to applied forces. The companion spreadsheet then interprets these observable physical reactions to provide insight into the internal loading within the beams. This can then reinforce the link between the students’ observations and the related theory. Learning can be considered a process in which concepts are explained and continually modified by experience rather than an expectation of results or an accumulated storehouse of facts (11). In addition, Kolb suggests that learning be considered an all-inclusive and well-rounded process of adjusting concepts so that they can be efficiently applied to real world situations. The use of models as a form of experience to teach ideas, whether theoretical or design, can serve as a conceptual bridge between life situations which aids creativity, problem solving, decision making, and scientific research (11). The theory put forward by Kolb has been implemented in various ways, with varying degrees of success. Laboratory education has been found to benefit significantly from the application of Kolb’s cycle, including hands-on activities and preand post-lab tests to prepare and consolidate the knowledge of the students (12). These theories were implemented within this activity by introducing the models, providing theory to reinforce the knowledge, and then using the models again with a greater knowledge base to consolidate the model and theoretical knowledge. This process can also serve to maximize the students’ knowledge gained by ensuring that each student has some level of preparation prior to the second instance of using the models and that the style of teaching is differentiated. Felder and Silverman (1988) contend that the amount of knowledge gained by any given student in a class is determined by “the student’s native ability and prior preparation as well as the compatibility of the student’s learning style with the teaching style of the instructor”. Abrahams and Millar (2008) questioned the effectiveness models alone to teach concepts based on observations of 25 science lectures which involved practical activities. According to this article, the primary purpose for the use of practical work is to provide links between concepts and real-life examples. From the observations, it was determined that the use of practical tasks for learning is more effective when it involves both the concepts and the practical models rather than focusing on the practical model alone. It has been generally found that Also, the effectiveness of the use of models was influenced by the manner in which the activity was introduced and presented. It was observed that an inductive approach was not ineffective but rather using the models as a support system to establish and complement the abstract concepts was an effective method that aided learning. An objection to this theory is that all observations are theory-laden and often times a model or practical example is only considered to be successful if the students obtain