Abstract:

Assessing technical learning outcomes in relation to industry expectations is challenging. In disciplines associated with the building industry, there is ongoing debate related to allocation of course hours to technical content that may be otherwise used for more broadly based theoretical content. However the expectation among employers for graduates to enter the workforce with discipline-specific software skills places unique demands on curriculums of professional programs in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) fields where accreditation requirements may limit flexibility in curriculum design. This is symptomatic of the larger issue of professional and career preparation in that it has been argued that theoretical knowledge and course content my better serve students in long term. Wheelan (2008) noted that “workers need to be able to use theoretical knowledge in different ways and in different contexts as their work grows in complexity and difficulty” adding that students “need to study at a higher level within their field in addition to immediate occupational outcomes.” Therefore assessing the relevance of technical course content is a high priority for AEC disciplines.

In this context, the architecture and construction management curriculums at a mid-western university in the US undertook an assessment of two required software-related courses. Both curriculums include a two-course core. The content of the first course focuses on 2D computer aided drafting skills while the second course focuses 3D modeling and Building Information Modeling (BIM). The need for the assessment was driven by shifts in the AEC industry from 2D Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) to 3D model-centric design and Building Information Modeling (BIM). CAD was to a large extent and digital version of traditional design documentation adopted incrementally by AEC professionals. In contrast BIM is considered a more disruptive technology that has transformed processes associated with AEC project delivery and has been characterized by a highly relatively rapid rate of adoption. However, there are inconsistencies in industry trends. According to a recent AIA report 96 percent of large firms, 72 percent of midsized firms, and 28 percent of small firms utilize BIM. However, according to Newton when considering all design firms, over 50% still primarily utilize 2D CAD technology.

Assessment of the learning outcomes of the existing software courses using industry-input would enable faculty to evaluate the relevance of the course content and prioritize curricular resources. A survey was developed to collect data from companies and practitioners in both architecture and construction management. The survey was structured in two sections. The first section was used to collect demographic data related to professional experience, software experience, and company size. The second section used a 5-point likert-type question was developed for each learning outcome to collect data on that outcomes perceived importance to the respondents practice or company operation. Responses were then documented and analyzed using frequency analysis, chi-square tests, and t-tests. The paper documents the results and how the data was used to inform subsequent curricular revision proposals and then discusses the perceived effectiveness among faculty of outcome-specific assessment.

Keywords:

Learning outcomes, industry assessment.