Ali, A K (2019) A case study in developing an interdisciplinary learning experiment between architecture, building construction, and construction engineering and management education. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(9), pp. 2040-2059. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to highlight the value of interdisciplinary learning specifically in the architecture (ARCH), building construction (BC) and construction management and engineering (CEM) disciplines within the USA’s higher education system. The study attempts to expand the existing literature on integrated design and construction education and offer an alternative model for academic students' collaboration when restructuring curriculums is not possible in the short term. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopted a qualitative research methodology, which involved designing a structured learning experiment, then followed it with collecting the “lived experience” of 31 participants from three majors according to the institution’s institution review board (IRB) office’s guidelines. The author hypothesized that students from different, but related disciplines working on a real-life project, would better understand the value of each other’s knowledge brought to the teamwork before graduation. The data were analyzed and compared to existing literature on integrated project delivery, and collaborative learning models. Data collection (surveys) was approved by the higher education’s IRB No. 13-021. Findings: Despite the already-existing curriculum obstacles, the majority of students were very pleased with this collaborative experiment. The results confirmed many of the expectations about how students viewed each other’s discipline. The preconceived notions were dissipated at the end of the study, and students expressed more appreciation for each other’s field and expressed interest in learning more about the thought processes of other disciplines. Research limitations/implications: Typical conflicting academic schedules were the greatest obstacle in this experiment. Architecture students often devote majority of their time to design studios and therefore are unable to fully engage in an integrated capstone project like this one as extracurricular. Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further. Practical implications: It is possible to develop a successful collaborative experience in the architecture, engineering and construction higher education system without major restructuring of the curriculums. The impact on students' learning experience is greater than the existing separated education model. Originality/value: This paper fulfills an identified need to study how integrated design and construction education occurs without creating new dedicated programs or coursework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | architecture; case study; constructions education; design; engineering; integrated practice |
| Index terms: | higher education, construction engineering, integrated practice, integrated design and construction, experiment, constructions education, program, methodology, collaboration, qualitative research, learning experience, survey, case study, building construction, design studio, teamwork, collaborative learning, integrated project delivery |
| Subjects: | research methods, building construction, engineering methods, software systems, learning methods, construction integration, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, management, research design and methodology, curriculum design, design practice, educational institutions |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Education, Organizational Design, Business Strategy, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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