Basson, J-P (2024) Using building information modelling to initiate criticality to promote built environment student collaboration at the Nelson Mandela University. PhD thesis, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa.
Abstract
Architectural, engineering, and construction education is fragmented, and there is no collaboration between disciplines during an architectural design project in the design studio. There is a lack of co-creation of knowledge in an interdisciplinary collaborative environment where students use critical reasoning, self-reflection, and critical action, essential skills required to become 21st century global citizens. Therefore, students from the built environment are being prepared contrary to the highly collaborative nature of the industry they are entering upon graduation. The purpose of this study is thus to determine whether adopting a digital interdisciplinary collaborative Building Information Modelling (BIM) environment in which architectural design projects promote criticality in undergraduate exit-level students. A cohort comparison study was used as a method to collect qualitative data. The 2022 cohort used the traditional design process, whereas the 2023 cohort used the BIM process, which supported interdisciplinary collaboration. Both cohorts engaged in a project and student narrative self-reflection essay. Fourteen students from the 2022 and 2023 cohorts participated in the study. The work was analysed using three cycles of coding. The first cycle focused on linguistic acts, followed by the second cycle that looked for evidence of critical reasoning, self-reflection, and action. The third cycle was based on the Habersian validity claims of truth, comprehension, and sincerity. The work of both cohorts was analysed, and findings included the following: relationships; information; emotional reasoning, and digital environment. Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that the BIM process as teaching strategy promotes a higher level of criticality in students than the traditional design process. In conclusion, this research not only contributes to promoting criticality improvement in students but also enriches the existing body of knowledge relative to BIM adoption in AEC education. Moreover, it offers practical guidance for educators to assess and enhance students' critical thinking skills, ultimately advancing the field of interdisciplinary education in the digital era.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; education; reasoning; skills; architectural design; architectural engineering; building information modelling; collaboration; construction education; teaching |
| Index terms: | building information modelling, validity, built environment, student collaboration, undergraduate, reflection, architectural engineering, critical thinking, co-creation, design process, reasoning, strategy, evidence, construction education, collaboration, design studio, narrative, architectural design, interdisciplinary collaboration, body of knowledge |
| Subjects: | design process, cognitive psychology, professional education, evaluation and assessment methods, specialized education, knowledge management, curriculum development, management, design practice, qualitative and interpretive research, professional development, infrastructure and transport systems, information systems, research design and methodology, design methods, learning methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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