Wetzel, E M and Farrow, C B (2023) Active learning in construction management education: Faculty perceptions of engagement and learning. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(8), pp. 1417-1425. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Research has shown that students within an applied professional education program, such as Construction Management (CM), often appreciate active learning. CM researchers have explored a variety of active learning approaches, but faculty perceptions across a variety of active learning strategies have not been considered. This research seeks to explore faculty perceptions, strategies, training, and barriers that may encourage or limit use of active learning within CM education. Results are based on 65 respondents from 55 universities who are members of the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC). Data indicates a positive perception of active learning by ASC faculty, opportunities for development of relatively simple but seldom-used active teaching strategies, and a need for the expanded breadth and depth of training in active learning. If these identified opportunities were expanded and training was enhanced, active learning within CM education could continue to propagate, enhancing the learning experience for both faculty and students.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | active learning; active learning classroom; construction education; faculty perception; interactive learning space; pedagogy; student engagement |
| Index terms: | pedagogy, learning experience, learning space, active learning, program, classroom, construction education, student engagement, construction management education, strategy |
| Subjects: | construction type, learning methods, software systems, management, teaching methods, professional education, student development |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Education, Business Strategy, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here