Paper ID #33512Assessing the Pedagogical Needs to Couple Front-end Planning Tools withSustainable Infrastructure ProjectsDr. Mohamed Elzomor, Florida International University Dr. Mohamed ElZomor is an Assistant Professor at Florida International University (FIU), College of Engineering and Computing and teaches at the Moss School of Construction, Infrastructure and Sustain- ability. Dr. ElZomor completed his doctorate at Arizona State University (ASU), Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering. Prior to attending ASU, Dr. ElZomor received a master’s of science degree in Architecture from University of Arizona, a master’s degree
projects. He received his PhD in Technology Management from Indiana State University with a specialization in Construction Management. He joined academia in 2014. His research focus is on contract administration on heavy civil projects, as well as on construction education. His teaching areas include 1. introduction to the built environment and construction management, 2. construction materials and methods, 3. construction equipment, 4. building construction cost estimating, 5. heavy civil construc- tion cost estimating, 6. project planning, scheduling, and control, 7. temporary structures, and 8. contract changes and claims. American c Society for
teaches courses in construction management at RIT including construction schedul- ing, planning and control, principles of construction leadership and management, and sustainable building construction and design. Her research is in sustainable built environments, occupant comfort and behav- ior, indoor environmental quality, and building energy consumption.Dr. Bilge G¨okhan C ¸ elik, Roger Williams University Dr. Bilge G¨okhan C ¸ elik is a Professor of Construction Management at Roger Williams University. He earned his Ph.D. in Design, Construction, and Planning from the University of Florida and his M.Sc. and B.Sc. degrees in Architecture from Anadolu University in Turkey. Dr. C¸elik’s research and
accreditingagency for both 4-year bachelor’s degree programs and two-year associate degree programs inconstruction, construction science, construction management, and construction technology. [16]Currently, there are 72 four-year bachelor's, five master's, and 13 associate degree programsaccredited by ACCE [17].ACCE lists the following learning outcomes for the bachelor degree programs in section 3.1.5 ofthe Standards and Criteria for the Accreditation of Bachelor’s Degree Construction EducationPrograms (ACCE Document 103B) [18]: 1. Create written communications appropriate to the construction discipline. 2. Create oral presentations appropriate to the construction discipline. 3. Create a construction project safety plan. 4. Create construction
the Spring" was aimed at sharing stories of success andchallenge from the recently concluded semester. The second session titled "COVID in the Fall" askedparticipants to share plans and concerns about the fall 2020 semester. Other sessions at the 2020Annual Conference which were focused on the pandemic included : • “After COVID-19: The role of Engineering Schools in the Post Pandemic Era” • “Challenges and Potential Solutions for Engineering Education posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic” • “Diversity Roundtable: The Impact of COVID-19 on Underrepresented Engineering Students” • “Diversity Roundtable: COVID-19 Impact on Faculty and Academic Careers”This paper documents the themes that emerged from the two round-table
technology. Theinstructor used a FARO laser scanner to record a wall’s displacement for out-of-plan loadsand a destructive test to clearly explain the mechanical behavior of the rubble walls of thetarget house for students [8].The American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) is a private non-profitcorporation, which accredits construction education programs in colleges and universities thatrequest its evaluation and meet its standards and criteria. The primary goal of ACCE is topromote and improve construction education in colleges and universities. By workingtogether through ACCE, stakeholders representing the construction community and the publicat large, construction educators, and constructors establish and maintain standards and
capacity, he man- aged projects ranging in size from $4 million to over $115 million and was responsible for overall project execution including budget and cost controls, procurement, safety, scheduling, quality, and client satisfac- tion. Anthony received both his Ph.D. in Planning, Design and Construction and master’s degree (M.S.) in Construction Management from Michigan State University. He received his bachelor’s degree (B.S.) from Eastern Michigan University and also holds a master electrical license in the State of Michigan. Anthony is a committee member for the Transportation Research Board - Standing Committee on Project Delivery Methods, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, and Ronald E
University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Gambatese’s expertise is in the broad areas of construction engineering and management, and structural engineering. He has taught many courses over his career on a variety of subjects including: construction safety, contracts and specifications, planning and scheduling, structural analysis and design, temporary construction structures, construction site systems engineering, and engineering economics. He has performed research and published numer- ous articles on construction worker safety, work zone design and safety, prevention through design, risk management, sustainability, constructability, innovation, and construction contracting. He is a licensed Professional Civil Engineer in
placed first and out of sequence fromthe real construction process, and it is followed by the reinforcement and the concrete slab, asshown in Figure 11. Figure 11: First floor Pieces (left), and First Floor Placed on the Site (right)The final step requires the removal of all the formwork (Figure 12), and the backfill of theexcavation as shown in Figure 13. Figure 12: Site with all Formwork Removed Figure 13: Site Backfill Pieces (left), and Completed Site (right)LimitationsSimilar to many other educational props, this model does have limitations. Due to the time ittakes to print all the pieces in the model, this prop requires some forethought and planning, and itis not meant to be prepared the day
Students, Contract DeliveryMethods, Construction Management CurriculaBackground and MotivationAccelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) is an innovative bridge construction technique that hasdrastically improved highway construction practices through the integration of effective plans,high-performance materials, safe designs, and reducing the overall construction time of newbridges or rehabilitation of existing bridges. However, recent studies have highlighted majorissues in the ABC technique which include the high initial cost of ABC, lack of standardization,inexperienced contractors, and inefficacy of traditional project delivery methods [1]. Traditionalproject delivery methods such as Design-Bid-Build (DBB) involve solicitation of theconstruction
. Cosgriff, “Problem-Based Learning: A Bridge Between Planning Education and Planning practice,” J. Plan. Educ. Res., 1998.[6] N. Postman and C. Weingartner, Teaching as a subversive activity, vol. 53, no. 9. 1969.[7] E. Forcael, V. González, F. Orozco, A. Opazo, Á. Suazo, and P. Aránguiz, “Application of problem-based learning to teaching the critical path method,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., vol. 141, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2015, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000236.[8] N. Capon and D. Kuhn, “What ’ s So Good About Problem-Based Learning ?,” Cogn. Instr., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 61–79, 2010, doi: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201.[9] P. N. Chou and H. C. Hsiao, “An alternative learning strategy to support engineering
) learned that construction engineers will focus on “Business,Management & Contracts” (68%), and construction engineering students (ConE) provided “Cost& Budget” (76%) as the most prominent theme described. These themes tie directly to the riskand reward scenarios of different contract types that are presented in lecture, and then practicedin the game. Other themes included: “Planning” (41% CivE, 24% ConE), “Owner/CivilCommunication Coordination” (32% CivE, 35% ConE), “Construction and Execution” (19%CivE, 12% ConE), and “Risks” (14% CivE, 6% ConE). 46% of the CivE responses (n=37) and41% of the ConE responses (n=17) were coded to multiple themes. Most coded categories aresimilar in the percentage of civil and construction engineering
struc- tural engineering and project management. Dr. Mosier has received regional and international teaching awards through the Associated Schools of Construction. Research interests include the cost of sustainable construction to owners and engineering education.Dr. Sandeep Langar, The University of Texas at San Antonio Dr. Sandeep Langar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Construction Science in College of Architecture, Construction, and Planning at The University of Texas at San Antonio. He received his Ph.D. in Environmental Design and Planning from the College of Architecture and Urban Studies at Virginia Tech. He is also a licensed architect in India. Dr. Langar has authored multiple publications
using game-based learning will demonstrate higher mathematicsGPA than the control group of students in the construction science and management program.For the second test, the study will divide students into adequate numbers of control andexperimental sample size groups.The research team plans to add more modules to the PCLG. The additional modules will bebased on the game leveling concept. The PCLG will use the student’s level of Pre-Calculusknowledge as a way of measuring the average statistics of their character – making questionseasier or harder to compensate their learning. To motivate student learning, the game willaddress the psychology of getting the rewards of leveling up.As a pilot study, the research team plans to include this game
successful training and consistent participation of theconstruction workforce to minimize accidents on jobsites. While traditional safety training hasfeatured classroom lectures and quick toolbox talks, the emerging technology of AugmentedReality/Virtual Reality (AR/VR) has recently been utilized by several different groups to attemptto improve construction safety training programs. This paper is presenting the current state of awork-in-progress project to investigate both the acceptance and efficacy of existing AR/VRconstruction safety programs and develop an improved AR/VR construction safety game. Thecurrent stage is the baseline measurement of efficacy using traditional classroom lectures as wellas early planning/creation of the improved AR/VR
3D model.9 Clash Detection Students learn to coordinate between the architect, structural and engineer, and mechanical engineer to create 3D models of a Coordination single-story small commercial building. They explore to visually represent the physical clashes between the components through 3D models. They also explore the usefulness of 3D models for coordination to resolve constructability problems.10 Object Students learn to depict the challenges in a small residential Animation construction site logistics plan through the 3D model.These activities
opportunity to deepen the technical knowledge in a way that was not initially planned as “I was working out of the main office, because of coronavirus cutting short my internship I was not able to be stationed at a specific job long enough to engage in an in-depth study of a particular area. On the contrary, being based out of the headquarters, I was able to study a broad spectrum of projects and areas.”• Essential skill development Like many industries, technical skills are required for the construction industry, but essential skills like interpersonal communication, time management, and problem-solving are not always as developed in students’ experiences as they need for their careers. Employers often remark about the
] recommendation to not perform statistical adjustments in the resultswhen a small number of planned comparisons are performed. The items included in the secondhypothesis were: • Women are not fit to be in a jobsite • There is gender discrimination in the construction field • Men are more capable than women in the construction domain • Women in construction are a better fit for office jobs rather than being on the field • I feel recruiters for construction companies prefer hiring males over females for jobsite- related positionsResultsWe have obtained 68 responses to our survey, with 67 respondents being in a constructionrelated major and one being in a construction related minor. Considering the total major studentsin the