Paper ID #22689Tailoring Construction Management Instruction to the Emerging Adult LearnerDr. Robert B. Austin, Bowling Green State University Dr. Austin has over 30 years of heavy construction, engineering and facility experience in industrial, transportation and building projects across the full range of project delivery systems. His industry experi- ence is multi-faceted with a strong background in civil engineering and construction management on both domestic and international projects. Having served in responsible charge of projects nationwide, he pos- sesses professional engineering licenses in several states
: Current structure - Option B: Monday, Wednesday, Friday- 8:00 am – 12:00 pm - Option C: Monday & Wednesday 12:00 pm – 6:00 pm - Option D: Monday & Wednesday 7:00 am – 1:00 pmEach of five levels of desirability from “very undesirable” to “very desirable” was quantified to1-5, respectively. The average score of options A-D was 2.64, 2.62, 3.23, and 2.30, respectivelywhich indicates a similar medium desirability between Option A and Option B. In addition,Option C was reported as the favorite option while Option D was rated as the least favoriteoption. Figure 6 shows the percentage of each option at each desirability level. 50 47 45 40
order.Also explained is the map of the site which can be viewed by clicking on the “Open Map” buttonon the bottom right corner of the screen. The “Open Map” button, as seen in Figures 1 and 2, canbe pressed at any time throughout the learning tool. When the user selects the button, a site mapappears and the button changes to read “Close Map”. This same button can then be pressed toclose the map. An example of this can be seen in Appendix B, Figure 23. Items from theenvironment are present on the map to aid the user in locating their position and knowing withrelative ease where to go next. Like the cones in the environment, the cones on the site map aredynamic and disappear as the user selects the corresponding cone in the environment. The
literate citizen needs to have: (1) a basic vocabulary of scientific terms andconstructs; and (2) a general understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry [5, 6]. The sixelements of science literacy are: (a) understanding basic science concepts, (b) understandingnature of science, (c) understanding ethics guiding scientists’ work, (d) understandinginterrelationships between science and society, (e) understanding interrelationship betweenscience and humanities, and (f) understanding the relationships and differences between scienceand technology [7]. The proportion of U.S. adults qualifying as being scientifically literate isnow 28% and has doubled over the last two decades, but the current level is still problematic fora democratic society that
tab which has a detailed description of stone masonry on it(Figure 7a). On the left is an illustration of a section view of a sluice gate, where students can seethe dimensions for stone block walls. On the upper right, there is a table where students learnhow many columns and layers of stone blocks are placed to construct a sluice gate. In the upperright corner is a “Return” button which takes students back to the Construction Materials tab(Figure 7c).(a) (b)(c)(d) (e) Figure 7: MUSSN Construction Materials Tab ScreenshotsIf students click the “Green bricks (0.5 m * 0.167 m * 0.1 m)” button, they will be lead toIntroduction to Construction Material tab which introduces brick
. 2. I prefer to learn from a professor/instructor. 3. I prefer to learn from my peers. B. Teamwork 4. I prefer to be a leader and give direction. 5. I expect to be able to work effectively in a team environment. 6. I prefer to be a valuable team member as opposed to a leader. C. Microsoft Project 7. I am very knowledgeable with Microsoft Project and can produce a schedule using the software. 8. I know how to use scheduling software other than Microsoft Project. 9. This topic is very valuable to my career.Additionally, the remaining students that received the lecture were given a post lecturequestionnaire also using a 5-point Likert scale, which can be seen in Table 2:Table 2: Remaining student post lecture
their career rolepreferences and recommend construction education program improvements. Informal discussionswith some selected students provided additional insights.Key findings indicated that future construction career role preferences were: (a) Project Manager(MPCRS = 8); (b) Superintendent (MPCRS = 7); (c) Real Estate Developer and Graduate Student(MPCRS = 6); and (d) Estimator / Inspector (MPCRS = 5). The reasons construction students gavefor preferring the project manager and superintendent roles included high salaries, opportunity tolead, love for authority, prior experiences, internships, role models, management skills, hands onwork, and working outdoors. The study showed that key reasons for students’ pursuit of a CMdegree included
. Fleck, “Learning by trying: The implementation of configurational technology,” ResearchPolicy, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 637–652, 1994.[15] S. Bell, “Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future,” The ClearingHouse, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 39–43, 2010[16] D. Workman, S. A. Gallagher, and W. J. Stepien, “Problem-based learning for traditionaland interdisciplinary classrooms,” Journal for the Education of the Gifted, vol. 16, no. 4, pp.338–357, 1993.[17] A. K. Ellis and J. T. Fouts, “Interdisciplinary curriculum: The research base,” MusicEducators Journal, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 22–22, 2001.[18] E. D. Duraising and V. B. Mansilla, “Targeted assessment of students' interdisciplinarywork: An empirically grounded framework proposed,” The
to alumni and industryadvisory council (IAC). The assessment of SOs was conducted on a six-year cycle, in which bothdirect and indirect measures were used by the CET program. Direct measures included PIs thatare drawn from both the senior project and the coursework. Indirect measures include senior exitsurveys, alumni surveys, and IAC surveys. These tools will be discussed in further details inSections A and B, covering the assessment tools used for the PEOs, and then moving into detailingthe assessment measures for the SOs. Figure 2: Assessment Process and Assessment CycleA. Assessment of Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)PEOs are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few
Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely # Bachelor’s Degree Q18.A Architecture 0% 29% 14% 43% 14% Q18.B Architecture Engineering 0% 29% 38% 19% 14% Q18.C Business Management 9% 41% 18% 23% 9% Q18.D Construction Management 17
Paper ID #22461Increasing Student Construction Interest by Engaging Elementary Studentsin an Inquiry-Based 3D Modelling After School ProgramDr. Geoff Wright, Brigham Young University Dr. Geoffrey A. Wright is a professor of Technology and Engineering Studies in the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology at Brigham Young University.Dr. Justin Earl Weidman, Brigham Young University Justin Weidman is an Assistant Professor in Construction Management at Brigham Young University. He earned his PhD from Virginia Tech in Environmental Design and Planning. c American Society for Engineering
% 26% without loan students Variables with no Variables with no 74% significant difference 84% significant difference for studetns with and for engineering and without loan non-engineering students (a) (b) Fig. 5. Ratio of number of significant variables to non-significant ones (a) for engineering and non-engineering
are described with the methods of course assessment used inconsideration of course learning outcomes and ultimately student learning outcomes. The processof developing the program through various iterations of faculty findings and subsequentrefinements are illustrated with further implementation of data collection using InstitutionalPlanning, Assessment and Research (IPAR) documentation to enhance the faculty collectionprocess. These assessment efforts determined how the program continually contributed to studentgrowth and development. The development process elaborated in this paper provides otherconstruction management education programs, faculty, and researchers with a systematicstructure for use in assessing program
Paper ID #22056Serving through Building: Sustainable Houses for the Gnobe People in Ciene-guita, PanamaProf. Lauren W. Redden, Auburn University Lauren Redden holds a Masters degree in Building Construction from Auburn University. Her indus- try experience includes working in Pre-Construction Services as an Estimator, and working in various positions in Operations including Project Management and Quality Control/Assurance. She is currently a Tenure Track Assistant Professor with the McWhorter School of Building Science at Auburn Univer- sity. Her research interests center around construction education, mobile technologies
Paper ID #23877Safety Training for Students Engaged in Service Learning ProjectsProf. Robert Alan Bugg P.E., Auburn University Alan Bugg recently joined the faculty of the McWhorter School of Building Science at Auburn University as an assistant professor. Prior to joining the faculty at Auburn, he worked for the U.S Army Corps of Engineers in a variety of positions for over 33 years. Most recently, he served as the Area Engineer at Fort Benning, Georgia where he directed a staff of 40 engineers and technicians and was responsible for the execution of a construction program averaging $200 million per year. Mr. Bugg
Paper ID #22717Integrating Micro-House Design and Construction into the Construction Man-agement and Engineering CurriculumProf. Edwin R. Schmeckpeper, Norwich University Edwin Schmeckpeper, P.E., Ph.D., is the chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction Management at Norwich University, the first private school in the United States to offer engineering courses. Norwich University was the model used by Senator Justin Morrill for the land-grant colleges created by the 1862 Morrill Land Grant Act. Prior to joining the faculty at Norwich University, Dr. Schmeckpeper taught at a land-grant