The Construction Game — Using Physical Model Making to Simulate ...

Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 pp. 57-74 (18) ISSN: 1747-4205 (Online)

The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education Perry Forsythe: University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Abstract A conundrum exists between teaching construction principles in the classroom, and an applied understanding of what actually happens on building sites. This paper explores and reports on using a physical model making game as a means of applied learning in construction technology courses. The link between model making, games and learning theory is discussed. A structured approach to model making – involving a 1:10 scale model of a house – was developed and implemented (referred to as the Construction Game). It aimed to foster a tactile appreciation of converting a design into physical construction, plus a first-hand understanding of the organisational dynamics involved in managing the process. As part of this, students experienced the dynamics of group management, subcontracting, communications and time scheduling. Findings regarding the success of the Game are based on feedback from tutor and student survey results. Feedback from the students was positive and identified targeted areas for improvement. The overall approach is posited as being an achievable means of simulating real construction processes in a way that enlists high levels of student participation and can be executed as a parallel stream to reinforce lecture content.

Keywords: Construction Management, Visual-spatial Learning, Games, Model Making

57 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

Introduction An issue for educators in construction technology courses at tertiary level is the conundrum between teaching construction principles in the classroom, versus teaching an applied understanding of construction as it occurs onsite. In this conundrum, it is notable that there is increasing difficulty in taking students to site. Kajewski (1999) and Mills et al. (2006) identify impediments such as large class sizes, tight timetabling of courses, busy site management, distant site locations, site safety concerns and student transport issues. Such problems make it hard and time consuming to execute site visits, thus making it impossible to include such visits in some courses, or at best, make them an isolated event in others. Either way, these practical difficulties make it hard for site visits to form a central and immersive approach to learning. Despite this problem, education research indicates that it is particularly important to have a contextual understanding of a problem in order to learn how to solve it (Ramsden, 1988). In the case of construction technology, students need to know what happens onsite in order to realistically solve the type of problems they will encounter once they begin professional practice. They must also be able to deal with the dynamics of communication and people management skills. This potentially impacts on full time students more than fractional students working in the industry, as the former have little or no real construction experience to draw on. Given the above conundrum, alternative methods of bringing the realism of the site to the classroom must be considered. Beecham et al. (2000), Kamaraswamy (2004) and Kajewski (1999) all advocate use of computer based methods to monitor, catalogue and conduct virtual site tours – without actually visiting the site. Though these methods have a valid place in education and learning, this paper explores and reports on an alternative approach using physical model making as a means of helping students simulate what happens onsite. It is posited here as being a particularly applicable vehicle for learning construction technology because it is more tactile and physical compared to computer based methods, hence meaning it more readily simulates what really happens onsite. For instance, physical model making positions students as direct participants in the construction process and this has distinct advantages over being, say a listener (who learns by listening to a lecture), or an observer (who learns by observing others during a site visit). Instead, model making can simulate the way construction elements fit together, and can also be used to incorporate an understanding of fabrication and erection processes, plus overarching process management issues as well. This integrated approach covers a gap in lecture based teaching and can all take place by virtue of using model making as the central focus of attention. Adding to the above is the intention to frame the model making activity in the context of a game. There is evidence to suggest that construction students should be open to the games driven approach. For instance in disciplines such as engineering, Münz et al. (2007) found that learning through games provides a playful means of increasing course knowledge whilst concurrently improving student course evaluations. At a more general level, games have

58 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

also been said to teach analytical thinking, collaboration and problem solving skills (Squire and Jenkins 2003). Given the above, the intended learning outcomes from the model making game developed and evaluated in this study, are a tactile appreciation of converting a design into physical construction, plus a first-hand understanding of the organisational dynamics involved in managing the process. From a learning theory perspective, the approach aims to engender high levels of student motivation, a foundation for visual-spatial learning, and a basis for socialising and collaborating among student-to-teacher and student-to-student groups. Further discussion substantiating these aims is discussed under the following headings.

Developing the Conceptual Framework for a Model Making and Games Led Approach Little could be found in the extant literature about the use of physical model making as a basis for education and learning in construction technology. Even so, potential differences exist when comparing this intent with related disciplines such as architecture. For instance, architectural models are often used to articulate the spatial form and functional aspects of a given design, however in the case of construction technology, other imperatives apply. The focus is more on helping students understand the process of fabricating and putting building elements together, and on getting construction detailing right. There is subsequently an implicit need to build to a larger scale in order to incorporate these features properly and the focus is on the process more so than the architectural merits of the end product. A potential benefit of physical model making is the ability to promote deep rather than surface learning. Surface learning is said to relate to reproducing and memorising facts and procedures routinely, while deep learning is more concerned with understanding ideas and relating such ideas to previous knowledge and experience (Entwistle, 1997). Unfortunately, there is mounting evidence that the traditional lecture format is insufficient to promote deep learning (Roth, 1996; Roupp and Pfister, 1993; Barab et al., 2000). This does not bode well for many lecture orientated construction technology courses and subsequently promotes the potential of physical model making as a means of supplementing and adding greater meaning to the lecture based approach. For instance, physical model making is implicitly linked to participatory learning which encourages problem solving, explanation, discovery and collaborative learning amongst peers (Barab et al., 2000; Duffy and Jonassen 1992; Young et al., 2000). Proponents of participatory learning such as Barab et al. (2000), aim for a technology rich environment with the intention of allowing students to ground their understanding within their own experiences. In this context, Meyers and Jones (1993) point out that simulation involves “placing students in an artificially constructed, yet sufficiently realistic context for learning” (p. 89) with a view to bridging the gap between theory and practice. In this regard, there is potential to set the model making to occur during a specific time frame that runs parallel and in a coordinated way with the weekly lecture content that is typically used in construction management courses over a semester. By doing this, there is potential to make the two work together in a synergistic way. By orchestrating this in the framework of a game, even further learning potential exists. 59 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

Using a model making game as a strategy for learning steers an interesting pathway between the two main epistemological positions that proliferate in education research: constructivism and objectivism. Constructivists believe that knowledge is ostensibly subjective in nature because meaning is constructed by assimilating and assembling information which is added to our agreed perceptions of existing knowledge. Objectivists are more likely to rely on meaning being inherent in a definable body of knowledge that may consist of theories, formulae and rules (Bates and Poole, 2003). Clearly, the two positions offer extremes that tend to be less pronounced in real world teaching environments. For instance, construction technology has an obvious leaning to objectivism in so far as producing a physical product that usually enlists a definable design and contractually based rules that ensure the product is objectively built on time, within budget, to meet regulatory requirements and at a specified level of quality. Despite this, there is no over-arching theory that objectively explains the dynamics of managing the construction process. For instance buildings involve project based dynamics with many subcontractors and a host of other disparate variables to consider. In this sense, a more subjective managerial problem exists and as a result, the constructivist position has greater relevance in helping students obtain the acquired knowledge, experience and sensitivity to solve that problem – especially when working with peers. With regard to these issues, the model making game developed and tested in this research aimed to imbue a mix of objective construction and subjective process management elements into the overall learning framework. Quite simply, the physical ‘model making’ aspect aimed to address the objective dimension, whilst the ‘gaming’ aspect – via its rules and social dynamics – aimed to address the subjective dimension. Guidance in taking this approach was vested in Laurillard’s (1993) assertion that students must be able to relate their direct experience of the world to an understanding of the concepts and processes that they learn at university.

Detailing the Links Between Games and Learning Theory Though there is a clear connection between physical model making and games, the lack of literature on model making means that the more developed literature on games provides the main linkage with learning theory. The following commentary articulates this linkage to enrich our understanding of why the approach taken in this study is appropriate and what learning outcomes can be expected from it. In order to begin this discussion there is the need to first delve into specific aspects of learning theory. Here, emphasis has been placed on targeted pieces of work contributing to learning theory. First, Vygotsky’s (Chaiklin, 2003) early contribution to theory posited a gap between what a learner independently knows based on cognitive development, and his or her potential level of development based on the instruction from teachers and peers. He referred to this gap as the zone of proximal development and asserted that student learning does not reach full potential without the above instruction and that this is a dynamic process of social practice that is best achieved via assistance from external stimuli (Chaiklin, 2003). 60 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

Gardner (1983; 1993) adds to the above by introducing eight hypothesised types of intelligence including: linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and naturalist intelligence. Each intelligence represents a different way of thinking, perceiving, learning, and problem solving. It has been argued that different forms of teaching have different impacts on the various forms of intelligence (Gifted & Creative Services Australia, 2007). For instance, learning for a number of the above forms of intelligence is most influenced by hearing and language and an awareness of time – known as auditory-sequential learning. Those partial to this mode of learning respond to “progression from simple to complex, organization of information, and linear deductive reasoning” (Gifted & Creative Services Australia, 2007, p. 1). However, this approach does not necessarily work well for visual-spatial learners, who take in information in a different way. According to Gifted & Creative Services Australia (2007), these learners think in terms of visualisation, images and an awareness of space – they are able to process concepts simultaneously, apply inductive reasoning, and generate ideas by combining existing facts. A benefit of this is that learning is permanent once the student is able to fit the information into the context of what they already know (Gifted & Creative Services Australia, 2007). Gareau and Guo (2009) point out that this form of learning is believed to be eight times faster than auditory-sequential learning. Keller (1987) adds to the above discussion by virtue of his ARCS model of motivation. The model identifies four different aspects of learner motivation that must be implicit in any vehicle used for teaching and learning: 

Attention – able to arouse and maintain curiosity;



Relevance – able to meet personal interest or professional need;



Confidence – able to succeed and have a sense of achievement after the teaching;



Satisfaction – enjoy the learning experience and believe there is appropriate reward for effort.

Games offer considerable potential for tapping into these important aspects of learning theory. For instance, games potentially act as a useful stimulus that encourages learning through social interaction – there is significant potential for this to occur in construction because of the extent of interaction common among project participants. Games have a strong capacity to tap into the visual-spatial mode of learning – this is clearly apparent given the physical nature of the model making approach utilised in this study. Games are conducive to addressing student motivation according to the ARCS model – they bring playfulness, competitiveness, rules for engagement and scope for creativity. Various authors support the above themes including the likes of Clark and Ernst (2009) and Jenkins (2008) who point out that games utilise stories, characters, and other environmental elements that produce a unique experience that will allow students to better retain subject matter. Squire and Jenkins (2003) elaborate further in their report ‘Harnessing the power of games in education’ where they detail how games create simulated environments, complex 61 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

problem solving and collaboration among peers. Games also offer a safe way to learn in so far as providing challenges and encouragement for students to inhabit roles that move them away from their daily student role and into participant-stakeholders roles (Squire and Jan, 2007). As a result, the above discussion underpins the appropriateness of using a games driven approach and these aspects add to the previously stated construction specific aims mentioned earlier in the paper.

Research Method The research method used to respond to the above aims can be described in terms of three key stages: 

Stage 1 – develop a specific context and mode for implementing a physical model making game to construction technology students. As discussed in more detail below, this eventuated in what is henceforth referred to as the Construction Game.



Stage 2 – obtain measurable feedback from students in a given construction technology course. Here, a survey instrument was administered to students upon completion of the Construction Game. The instrument utilised closed questions with Likert scale responses and a lesser number of semi-open questions where student were allowed one to two line open responses. All responses were anonymous.



Stage 3 – obtain qualitative feedback from the lecturer-in-charge and the tutor assisting in the course. This was to evaluate the usefulness of the Construction Game from a teacher’s perspective. Feedback was recorded in the form of weekly diary notes which eventuated in collapsing the data down into central themes and issues.

In implementing the above, it was important to first identify the sample of students to be used for trialling the Construction Game. It was decided that first year, full time construction technology students potentially stood to gain the most from undertaking the Construction Game because they should logically have the least construction experience compared to other students. The Construction Game was therefore implemented in the form of a major assignment for first year construction technology students enrolled in an undergraduate Bachelor of Construction Management degree. The course ran over a 13 week semester. The class consisted of 100 students and for the purposes of implementing the Game, students were broken up into 12 equal sized groups – each group acting as a separate contracting company with the responsibility of delivering a physical model of a building. Greater detail and findings from the three stages is discussed under the following headings.

Stage 1 – Developing “the Construction Game” The Construction Game was conceived in terms of constructing a 1:10 scale model of a detached house including a model of the site itself. The scale allowed simple conversion of dimensions from the architectural drawings which included plans, elevations, cross sections 62 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

and site spot levels. The idea was that students would be able to make a model large enough to portray technical detail including wall cavities, concrete slab step downs etc. In terms of construction technology it incorporated the following themes: 

Site works including converting spot levels to a contour drawing, modelling the contours in a three dimensional form, simulating a cut and fill excavation, installing temporary site works such as sedimentation fences, site facilities, delivery locations and material storage locations.



Involvement in constructing floor, wall and roof systems including separate subcontractors for each.



Detailing construction according to selected design guidelines and Australian Standard requirements.

In terms of the dynamics of day-to-day process management the Game incorporated: 

Organising materials purchases;



Dealing with subcontractors;



Aspects of materials handling;



Calling for quality inspection at key milestone points;



Preparing and implementing a resourcing schedule for construction activities (e.g. gang sizes and equipment requirements);



Preparing and implementing a time schedule for construction activities (i.e. using Gantt Chart software);



Undertaking and recording day-to-day inline communications between subcontractor, construction manager and architect (i.e. the tutor acted in the role of the Project Architect).

As alluded to previously, the Construction Game involved student groups and each group took on the guise of a construction company. Each company consisted of a construction manager and a series of subcontractors including an excavation subcontractor, concretor, wall framer, roof framer, bricklayer and roofer. Each group was encouraged to set up an email chain whereby subcontractors could ask questions of their respective construction managers which could be passed-on up the line to the Project Architect. Of note, the numbers in each group were set to provide clearly defined roles for each. Of further note, internal fitout was excluded due to the limited amount of modelling that could be achieved in the time available, and the spatial difficulties in being able to model the internal fitout at a scale of 1:10. All groups were assisted in their model making by attending 11 two hour tutorials. The tutorials were coordinated to make sure that relevant construction principles had been taught in lectures first. In order to provide context, Table 1 shows the tutorial series relative to the lecture series - including time allocations for each. This varied from the lecture driven approach used previously in the subject and in order to accommodate the new mode of 63 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

delivery without changing the overall time devoted to the subject, lecture content was pared back and converted to tutorial content. Typically, this meant that time spent in lectures trying to relate the realities of the construction processes onsite, could now be more economically handled during tutorials (i.e. when students were working on their models). Table 1: Lecture and Tutorial Schedule Week No.

Lecture topic

Tutorials for construction game

(2 hours/lecture)

(2 hours/tutorial)

1

Introduction to the Building Process and building regulations

No tutorial

2

Site establishment (e.g. site assessment, soil investigation, levels and contours)

Briefing and preparation for model making

3

Site works (e.g. excavation, drainage, foundations)

Begin site establishment and bulk excavation component of model

4

Footings and concrete slab construction

Continue site establishment and bulk excavation model

5

Concepts in timber framed construction (e.g. loads, spans, bracing, tie down, choosing members)

Inspection of model to date and begin concrete slab component of model

6

Mid semester exam

Continue with concrete slab model

7

Timber framed wall construction

Inspect model to date and begin timber wall frame component of model

8

Timber framed roof construction

Continue with timber wall frame model

9

Brick construction

Begin roof truss component of model

10

DPC/Flashings

Inspection of model to date and begin brickwork component of model

11

Roof covering and roof plumbing

Continue with brickwork model

12

Fit-out and wet areas

Begin roof covering component of model

13

Construction sequence and Construction Game debrief

Continue with roof covering model

14

N/A

Submit completed model (i.e. completed superstructure)

In terms of the actual model, a simple house design replicating a small three room cabin was provided to students. It involved a gable ended roof with a transverse gable insert located mid length (this incorporated valley gutters and creeper rafters). The overall size of the model measured 900mm x 600mm x 400mm (high) and this effectively meant that the models needed to be stored at the University. Materials centred around use of balsa wood and foam board which meant that only a knife, a ruler and a set square were required. Glue, pins and tape could also be used to assist assembly. In this first iteration of the Game, it was decided that this limited use of materials overcame many health, safety and workshop availability issues. In order to facilitate detailed execution of the model, participants in each group were provided with individual information packages (including the construction manager and each of the 64 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

subcontract roles). Each package included things like drawings, design guidelines, materials specification and locations for purchasing materials. These were developed by the lecturerin-charge of the subject and were written in a way that aimed to ensure that the end product added up to more than the sum of its parts. Collectively, the lecturer-in-charge used these packages of information plus a dedicated briefing paper to help the tutor understand and facilitate the Game. In addition, the lecturerin-charge held a number of pre-meetings with the tutor to discuss specific issues. The lecturer also periodically attended tutorials and maintained regular phone and email contact with the tutor to assist the process further. In order to ensure proper learning outcomes and a feeling of stakeholder equity, a debriefing session was held in the final week of the lecture series to obtain feedback about the Game. Since the Construction Game was implemented in the form of a major assignment, marks were apportioned as 65% for individual performance and 35% for group performance. The 65% individual performance was awarded for execution of the individual’s designated activity within the group (e.g. say the concreting activity). This aimed to prevent lazy participants from going unnoticed. The 35% group mark aimed to encourage cooperation and cohesion between the group members. Efforts were also made to try to ensure that all members in the group had roughly equal work loads. Even so, the construction manager’s overseeing role clearly required more work than the rest and so a 10% mark incentive was provided for those willing to take on this role. In operationalising the previous marking structure, students notionally started out with a perfect 100% score, then marks were deducted for: 

Turning up unprepared for work at the tutorial (i.e. didn’t bring materials, didn’t have the project drawings, didn’t have the requisite tools). This aimed to make students cognisant of the ‘domino-effect’ that their lack of progress may have on production.



Failing to meet due dates for delivery of construction (i.e. a schedule was set prior to commencement of the project concerning milestones for delivery). It aimed to make students aware that in building projects, progress payments are not made until physical milestones are completed.



Failing to meet quality requirements (i.e. students lost marks for errors relating to setout, dimensional problems, wrong member spacing and incorrect detailing at interfaces between elements). Inspections took place at designated points in time, and were undertaken by the Project Architect (i.e. the subject tutor).

Construction managers were treated a little differently to those undertaking specific subcontract activities. They needed to take overall responsibility for cost, time and quality issues. If things were going wrong, they had a responsibility to manage the project more carefully. To monitor progress, they were required to turn up briefly at certain tutorials. They were also required to attend occasional management meetings (10 minute meetings after class) where they briefed the Project Architect on progress and other issues. As required, 65 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

they issued memo style emails to any underperforming subcontractors and included copies to the Project Architect. Among other things, marks were deducted for being late in filing update reports to the Project Architect or for not attending ‘manager meetings’. Marks were also deducted for not providing requested information to subcontractors or for providing poorly contrived time plans (i.e. as part of the Game, they were required to submit a reasoned time schedule for a full scale version of the model they were building). To offset the deduction of marks, groups were awarded bonus marks where they out performed other groups for various milestone requirements. This introduced a competitive aspect to the Game which proved useful in terms of enlisting greater participation and commitment from the groups involved.

Stage 2 – Student Feedback Students were asked seven closed questions as summarised in column two of Table 2. Broadly speaking, these questions aimed to canvas collaboration and motivation among students (as per the ARCS model discussed earlier in the paper). Here, one question aimed to tap into collaboration by questioning the extent of interaction between team members. Three other questions aimed to tap into the relevance of the model making game by questioning how much they learned in terms of construction technology, time scheduling and process management. Another question aimed to gauge how successfully the Game captured student attention by probing about their level of involvement in it. Finally, two other questions aimed to tap into student satisfaction and confidence by probing about how challenging and enjoyable the Game was to them. Each question was scored using a six point Likert scale and column three of Table 2 presents the mean Lickert scale scores for responses to each of the questions. The scores are based on a sample of 60 student responses to the survey, thus representing a response rate of 60% relative to the 100 students in the class. Reading from Table 2, the overall mean score from all questions was 4.63 (out of a possible 6), thus indicating that the Construction Game was generally perceived very positively by students. The mean scores for individual questions were tightly packed around the mean with a minimum value of 4.4 and maximum value of 5.0. This tended to indicate consistency and balance in terms of the enjoyment, challenge, involvement and learning that students perceived from undertaking the Construction Game. Of the above scores, it was pleasing to see that the maximum score of 5.0 was for involvement in undertaking the Game – thus indicating that it worked well in engaging student attention, albeit a fairly large and time consuming assignment.

66 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

Table 2: Student scores for closed questions Closed Questions

Mean Class Scores*

1.

Did you enjoy the assignment?

4.4

2.

Did you find it challenging?

4.5

3.

Did you find yourself getting involved in it?

5.0

4.

Did you learn much about the technical aspects of housing construction?

4.7

5.

Did you learn much about how the different parts of housing construction fit together?

4.4

6.

Did you learn much about the need for interaction between those involved in the construction team?

4.6

7.

Did you learn much about the sequencing of housing construction activities?

4.8

Overall mean

4.63

*Note: 1 = not at all; 6 = very much In terms of semi-open questions, students were asked their perception of how to improve the game. A content analysis was used to categorise responses under key themes and the resulting themes are shown in column one of Table 3. In total, seven themes were identified and the frequency of each is shown in column two – each being presented as a percentage of total. Reading from Table 3 it is apparent that the need to improve information dissemination was by far the most common theme raised by students at 27% and therefore forms the focus of ongoing discussion. The main area of comment from students concerned the need for more information on the materials required to undertake the model building process. For instance even though materials were specified in the information packages provided for each subcontract activity, students wanted greater detail including prescriptive sizes, material grades and places where such materials could be purchased. They wanted to know this for each and every component. Of note, this item was also raised as an area for improvement by the subject tutor (as discussed later in this paper). Given these findings it would seem that it is important to gauge a balance between abstract versus prescriptive information provided to students. For instance the more abstract the information, the more students must be creative in solving a relatively unstructured problem. In contrast, the more prescriptive the information, the more students must simply do what they are told. Clearly the former has the benefit of encouraging critical thinking but there is a balancing point where insufficient structure to the problem simply destabilises and clutters students’ efforts. It also uses up too much time on minor activities. Hence, setting the balancing point between abstraction and prescription is important and manifests itself here in

67 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

terms of providing more detail concerning materials specifications, so that students can concentrate more on the larger problem of organising and managing construction activities. Table 3: Students’ perception of how to improve the Game Issues

%

Improve information dissemination

27

Revise time schedules for delivery of work activities

17

Redistribute roles/responsibilities

17

Revise evaluation policies

13

Improve group dynamics

10

Revise materials options

9

Improve design and clarity of linkage of design to construction

7

Total

100

In two other semi-open questions, students were asked if they felt they had a fair share of the workload in their group and if there were ways of more fairly sharing the workload. Findings relating to the first of these two questions are presented in Table 4 and indicate that a strong 64% majority of students felt they had a fair share of the work while only 29% felt that they did not. Table 4: Students' perception of whether they had a fair share of the work Response

%

Yes

64

No

29

No response

7 100

Total

Adding context to these findings, the data presented in Table 5 shows a similar majority (63%) made no response concerning ways of improving the fairness of work load. This and the previously discussed findings from Table 4 tend to indicate that in practical terms, the Construction Game achieved a reasonably good spread of work load among students. Even so, there was a need to seek feedback where further improvement was possible. For instance referring back to Table 5, a smaller 20% wanted a greater emphasis on spreading responsibilities across the other group members and this figure is somewhat similar to the 29% who felt they had an unfair share of work load (as previously presented in Table 4). Unfortunately, the anonymous nature of the survey did not allow individuals to be identified to find out more about these concerns, but as discussed later in the paper – under tutor and 68 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

lecturer feedback – it is suspected that this may be linked to the larger work load associated with the construction manager’s role, compared to the subcontractor’s role within each group. Table 5: Content analysis of students’ improvements Issue

%

Responsibilities need to be spread

20

Performance linked to rewards

6

Improve support facilities

4

More roles required within the group

3

Reduce the focus on model making

4

No response

63

Total

100

Stage 3 – Tutor and Lecturer Feedback A single tutor was used to administer the Construction Game over the previously mentioned 11 week period and so this person was best positioned to provide firsthand feedback in terms of evaluating the implementation of the game and areas of potential improvement. In general, tutor feedback supported the student survey findings. For instance the tutor found a strong sense of commitment and involvement from students, but found the need for a more prescriptive approach to materials specification which would allow students to worry less about peripheral issues and focus more on the main areas of learning. Pursuant to this, the following points apply: 

A clearer sequence for inspection (assessment) of the work should be used. Groups could then work out a pre-emptive understanding of their role and identify potential problems early.



The make-up of groups would benefit by trying to have a mix of individual strengths e.g. some people are good organisers, others are good model makers and still others are good at communicating events.



Consider creating a more group orientated approach to purchasing materials to share costs more fairly.



Consider a greater emphasis on encouraging students to share construction management responsibilities and be involved throughout the model making process, while still having designated people in the group being ultimately responsible for delivery of a given part of the model



Consider an increased scale for the model. A 1:5 scale would be ideal but would require more advanced tools. It would also mean on-campus work would become essential and larger on-campus storage facilities or an alternative outdoor model 69 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

making approach required. A potential benefit of this approach would be that materials and components could to some extent be held in-stock and recycled/reused. It would also allow the prospect of a larger site – say 1800mm x 1200mm – and could take on a ‘sandpit’ type approach that would allow students to map contours and excavate using real soil. 

A prescriptive specification of accurately scaled and readily available materials would give the model a much higher and beneficial degree of credibility. More assistance should be provided for students to source materials, tools and correct adhesives, as this seemed to be a logistically complicated and time consuming task, and therefore unnecessarily distracting for students. It subsequently caused students to ignore important construction details simply in order to finish the model.



One option for advanced applications of the Construction Game is to provide a rigid materials specification but to allow the possibility of formally requested variations i.e. sent to the Project Architect. Though this could improve student understanding of the construction process, the down side would be that extra time would be needed to administer and approve such variations.



Consistent with previous comments, there is a need to upgrade the drawings for the house from a basic plan and elevations, to a better set of detailed construction drawings.



In terms of assessment, challenge the students with the need to understand and apply important aspects of construction management by giving them some proforma record keeping/reporting sheets including time management, certification and achievement of construction tolerances.

Though less involved in the day-to-day running of the Construction Game, the lecturer-incharge of the subject was responsible for conceiving and overseeing the implementation of the Game. Of note, the Game was designed to run as a parallel stream to the delivery of lectures and so a key observation was the need for the content of lectures to be delivered in advance of the corresponding content being covered in the model making process. There was little tolerance for mishaps or unexpected changes to the time schedule. Other lecturer-in-charge observations were developed via comments from students during the course, meetings with the course tutor, random visits to tutorials and via occasional meetings with the construction managers from the groups. From these sources, key observations that also supported previously reported findings included the high level of involvement, effort and commitment that construction managers (in particular) were prepared to put into the Construction Game. Though these managers clearly enjoyed this involvement and learnt a lot from it, they also found it very time consuming and clearly had a higher level of responsibility than others in the group. These observations suggest a degree of linkage with the previous student survey findings where 20% of respondents said that they thought responsibilities in undertaking the Game should be spread more fairly. In further support of this, and to the surprise of the lecturer-in-charge, some students with subcontracting roles expressed the view that they would have preferred to have had a higher level of involvement 70 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

in the Game – consistent with the involvement of construction managers – as they wanted to learn more about the overall building process. This finding was particularly encouraging as it reinforced the student survey findings that students wanted to participate and be involved, irrespective of the level of work that this might create for them. Logistical issues were also apparent but mainly focused on difficulties within the University concerning the availability of appropriate work space, scheduling of work space and the storage of models on campus. In attempting to increase the level of realism of the model making, considerable time was spent inquiring about the use of external work spaces, but it was found there was much work in trying to overcome safety, risk management and asset management issues.

Conclusion The concept of a physical model making game – in this case via its manifestation as the Construction Game – offers a novel approach to learning in construction technology courses. It taps into visual-spatial learning, thus offering a complementary but different mode of learning relative to audio-sequential learning (i.e. being the mode that aligns with traditional lecture based delivery). The Game also offers the benefit of direct participation which cannot even be achieved via observation-only site visits. It can not only aid an understanding of construction technology but can provide significant insight into management of the construction process as well. It can do this by encouraging high levels of motivation in students in terms of attention, perceived relevance to learning needs, perceived confidence in outcomes and satisfaction. It is also a good vehicle for learning through collaboration and socialising. Subtleties exist in the detailed implementation of the Game. One reoccurring theme concerned the need to allow all members in a group to work together so that they could all experience the entire model making process. Arguably, there is still a need to do this in a way that ensures all members participate equally for both assessment and learning purposes. A second issue concerned the level of abstraction in presenting the Construction Game as a problem solving exercise to students. In this respect, it was difficult initially to know how far to push students, before taking them beyond a reasonable learning envelope. The findings in this study suggest that refinements to things like material selection and design documentation should be undertaken to improve the overall execution of the Game. For instance, the Game was initially set up with minimal guidance regarding material selection and construction design, and though this served to enlist great effort from the students in trying to respond to a problem that they were not used to, this distracted them from effort in more important aspects of learning. As a result, there is the need to monitor the ’balancing point’ between abstract and prescriptive information for various components of the Game. Relatively abstract information is important where trying to enlist creativity and problem solving, but must to some extent be balanced with prescriptive information for parts of the problem that merely play a supportive role in the problem.

71 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

A significant impediment to implementing the Construction Game concerned the need for appropriate tutorial space and storage for models. This is particularly the case where large scale models are required, as is considered to be important to construction technology model making. Given these concerns, a useful variation for implementing the Construction Game could be to build larger scale models (say 1:5 scale) that could be built outdoors which would further increase the reality offered by the Game. If undertaking such a strategy, it would be important to check and address occupational health and safety issues, the impact of stoppages to progress associated with poor weather and the potential impact of site security problems. It would also be important to canvas risk and asset management issues – as perceived by university administrators. Irrespective of the use of larger scale models, the game could benefit by introducing further realism to model making. Specific suggestions include: 

Utilising gypsum cement and thin gauge tie wire to simulate reinforced concrete slab modelling;



Utilising a sand pit type approach to each site;



Utilising scaled building blocks to better simulate the brick laying process.

Future Vision Though this study of the Construction Game ostensibly focused on its application to the construction process, it is apparent that it could be more widely used for related technology courses. Of note, it could be used as a central basis for linking construction technology with courses such as design documentation, design management, materials science and structural appreciation courses. If such an approach was taken, then the Construction Game could be used as a participatory learning process that could run parallel to all relevant courses. Obviously this would have implications for coordination across the various courses but student time commitment in making the model would be spread over a larger number of courses. The combined approach could also provide a better basis for integrated learning among linked courses.

72 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

References Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M. & Keating, T. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Building understanding through model building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7), 719-756. Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Beecham, N., Bouchlaghem, N. & Sher, W. (2000). Implementing computer imagery and visualisation in teaching, learning and assessment. INCITE Conference Proceedings January 2000, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pp. 443–452. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. & Miller, S. (Eds.). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 39-64. Clark, A. C. & Ernst, J. V. (2009). Gaming in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 68 (5), 21-26. Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Entwistle, N. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (Eds.). The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. pp. 3-22. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books. Gareau, S. & Guo, R. (2009). “All work and no play” reconsidered: The use of games to promote motivation and engagement in instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3 (1), 1-12. Gifted & Creative Services Australia. (2007). Visual-spatial thinking. URL: http://www.giftedservices.com.au/visualthinking.html (accessed 22 May 2009). Jenkins, H. (2008). Game design as narrative architecture. URL: http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/games&narrative.html (accessed 22 May 2009). Kajewski, S. (1999). Virtual construction site visits via the World Wide Web. In Chen, K. Australia University Building Educators Association Conference, Proceeding of the 3rd & 4th electronic conference, AUBEA, pp. 125–129. Kamaraswamy, M. (2004). Accelerating learning via virtual site visits. International Journal of IT in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2 (1), 19-32.

73 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE

P. Forsythe: The Construction Game – Using Physical Model Making to Simulate Realism in Construction Education

Keller, J. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, 26 (9), 1-8. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge. Mills, A., Ashford, P. & McLaughlin, P. (2006). The value of experiential learning for providing a contextual understanding of the construction process. 31st Australia University Building Educators Association Conference, University of Technology, Sydney. Meyers, C. & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Münz, U., Schumm, P., Wiesebrock, A. & Allgower, F. (2007). Motivation and learning progress through educational games. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 54 (6), 3141–3144. Ramsden, P. (1988). Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning. In Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 159-184. Roth, W. M. (1996). Knowledge diffusion in a grade 4 - 5 classroom during a unit of civil engineering: An analysis of a classroom community in terms of its changing resources and practices. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 179-220. Roupp, R. & Pfister, M. (1993). An introduction to Labnet. In Roupp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B. & Pfister, M. (Eds.). Labnet: Towards a community of practice. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 1-20. Squire, K. D. & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16 (1), 5–29. Squire, K. & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3 (1), 5-30. Young, M. F., Barab, S. A. & Garrett, S. (2000). Agent as detector: An ecological psychology perspective on learning by perceiving - acting systems. In Jonassen, D. & Land, S. M. (Eds.). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 147–173.

74 Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 4, Issue 1, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 CEBE