Engaging Freshman Minds: Redesigning The Introductory Construction Course For Student Retention
Eric T. Inglert, M.B.A., B. Arch., R.A.University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Written as a case study in the middle of the first term, this paper records a professor’s nascent course redesign. The course design inquired about the nature of what constitutes a good introductory course for freshman studying in architecture, engineering and construction programs. An existing course known as Construction Materials was redesigned with the objective of positively impacting student retention. Retention rates suggested that three freshman did not return for every seven that came back to resume the sophomore year. Students needed an introductory course that not only surveyed the industry and professional skills, but that also created enthusiasm for, and confidence in, learning. Theorizing a link between perceptions about learning and willingness to continue studies, coursework was redesigned to use engaging learning methods that included dialogues with industry experts, field observation reporting, multimedia presentations, and problem-based learning. This work provides a snapshot of the course’s explorations and explains ideas for reevaluating curriculum with student retention objectives.
Key Words: Freshman. Pedagogy. Problem. Retention. Storyboard.
Introduction
This paper is the first segment of a three-part exploratory work that describes an ongoing intervention in the first-term course, “Construction Materials: An Introduction to the Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industry.” Written as a case study in the middle of the first term, this work records the lead instructor, Professor E’s., nascent course redesign as it was happening, in order to preserve the professor’s a priori theories for later comparison and evaluation. Professor E’s initial question was, “what is the nature of a good introductory course for freshman studying in architecture, engineering and construction, AEC, programs?”
The department felt that the curriculum design of first term AEC courses seemed to affect a student’s perceptions regarding ability to successfully complete the multi-year professional degree. In 2002, retention rates for students entering sophomore year at the college suggested that three students did not return for every seven that came back to resume professional education. College administrators and faculty were interested in improving the student retention rates trend, down five percent over 10 years (Meeker, 2002). Professor E. proposed to observe and measure each student’s perceptions about the freshman first term academic experience and wondered if the class could impact that student’s decision to continue coursework next year.
Part two of this study, written upon course commencement, will synthesize the course framework, record student perceptions, and develop a theory about the course’s impact on student retention. Planned for next year, part three will record retention data, present refined objectives for the course design and propose incremental retention goals for the next five years.
Construction Materials Course Overview
The foundation of the redesigned course content was built on the professor’s previous experiences teaching a course of similar title in the third term of the freshman year. The original course used a lecture and lab format focusing on the raw materials of the built environment from mining, to manufacturing, to in-the-field application. Lab work attempted to recreate many of the standard field tests (Proctor, slump, concrete compression tests, etc.) and hands-on construction techniques (building brick arch works, erecting steel with an overhead crane, building a wood truss, etc.) While many students enjoyed these labs, the lecture classes did not produce much interest or learning about the industry. Most, if not all, of the lab tests and techniques were repeated later in the curriculum in soils mechanics labs and structures labs. Construction Materials was a very specialized subject that did not capture the imagination or enthusiasm of new initiates to the AEC professions.
Faculty felt the students needed an introductory course that surveyed the AEC industry, engendered enthusiasm for, and confidence in, learning and that introduced the students to basic professional skills. Many observers had noted the mounting anecdotal evidence of an increasing number of under-prepared students entering the college. The University Provost at a college meeting the first week of this year remarked, “We are in the business of remediation for under prepared students.” (Perzigian, 2003). There was growing consensus that it seemed axiomatic that secondary schools were not adequately preparing incoming college freshman for the oftentimes-overwhelming new challenges they would face in the first year while attempting to learn a demanding technical curriculum. Last year the department shifted Construction Materials to the first term, replacing Construction Drawing I, as the initial freshman course.
The departmental director envisioned a team consisting of four architects that would redesign the course content as an enthusiastic welcome to the AEC professions. Three of the architects were teaching as adjunct professors and professor E. had recently joined as an assistant professor after five years as an adjunct professor in the department. All four had experience teaching Construction Materials, and all were actively practicing architecture in the private sector. Professor E. would coordinate and standardize all instructional content for the team while lecturing twice a week to 60 students and leading 20 of these students in lab work on Monday. One architect, professor J., would lecture the other 40 students and lead 20 of these students in a lab on Wednesday. The remaining two architects would lead the other groups of 20 students in labs. The departmental director was concerned that the professors should coordinate and standardize the content. The team communicated daily via email and held periodic coordination meetings. Professor E. developed content and learning strategies weekly, working from a basic course outline (Table 1.)
Table 1Construction Materials Course Outline
Week / Lecture Topics / Lab Activities1 (9/24-25*) / Building Professions & Trades / Overview (Incomplete Week)
2 (9/29-10/2) / Design Process, Socratic Method & Scientific Method / Voices of Practice documentary
3 (10/6-9) / Drawing Lessons and Tools for Constructors / Observational Drawing Exercises
4 (10/13-16) / Construction Administration & Exam 1 / Site Visit & Field Report
5 (10/20-23) / History of a Construction Project / Skyscraper documentary
6 (10/27-30) / Building Systems and Materials Overview / The Landmark: PBL Group Work
7 (11/3-6) / Structural Materials: Wood and Steel / Work on Group Presentations
8 (11/10-13) / Structural Materials: Concrete, Masonry and Stone / Group Presentations
9 (11/17-20) / Cladding and Roofing Systems & Exam 2 / Guest Lecturers from Industry
10 (11/24-26*) / Mechanical Systems / Work on Group Presentations
11 (12/1-4) / Electrical, Lighting and Acoustical Systems / Group Presentations & Web Pages
* Partial Week / PBL: Problem-based learning
Course Objectives: Developing Professional Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes
Professor E. often repeated to the students the message that good AEC professionals are systematic thinkers and enthusiastic life-long learners; and, that problem solving in the office and in the field demands significant intellectual rigor, energy, and confidence in systems or processes that help the professional avoid being overwhelmed by the monumental coordination tasks of complex projects. The professors likewise felt that good AEC students should seek to gain early control of learning processes so as not to become overwhelmed by the technical content. What were the perceptions of students coming into the class? How much could the course hope to positively impact those perceptions over a term lasting only ten or eleven weeks?
The first day of lecture, prior to any instruction, each student was given eleven pre-survey questions. The survey instrument is reproduced at the end of this paper (Appendix A). Using a Likert scale, the survey asked questions that gauged student perceptions of, or attitudes about: (1) understanding the AEC industry, (2) the interrelation between design and construction, (3) personal study and time-management skills, (4) confidence in oral & written communication skills, (5) aptitude at applying resources, (6) functioning in a team, (7) importance of life-long learning, (8) systematic decision-making processes, (9) valuing different points of view, (10) valuing teaching variety and (11) the need for community support. The final day of lecture, December 3, 2003, students shall be given the identical survey instrument. Professor E. wondered, could an enthusiastic and responsive teaching pedagogy focused on active learning improve student perceptions of these eleven course objectives? Could improvement on these measures predict marginal increases in student retention?
Study Rationale: Theoretical Foundations For Course Redesign
Professor E. theorized that there would be a link between a freshman’s degree of acceptance and enthusiasm for AEC course content and that student’s confidence and willingness to continue studies during sophomore year. Faculty might not see student retention as part of their role (Karp, 2001). The professors sought to challenge that idea, proposing rather, that faculty should play the major role as medium between the academy and the student. That responsibility suggested orienting the freshman towards a greater sense of belonging to the learning community. Further, inquiry in student retention literature proposed that good teachers (Noel, Levitz, Saluri & Assoc., 1985) positively impact student retention behavior. Having recently completed a weeklong teaching institute in September 2003 focused on Problem Based Learning (PBL,) professor E. was interested in applying many of the pedagogies learned. Table 2 lists some principles that the Construction Materials professors tried to adopt in order to better engage the students in learning.
Table 2Good AEC Professors are Teachers Who:
Principle1 / Believe instruction to be their first academic priority
2 / Focus on content and delivery
3 / Engage in problem-solving activities with their students
4 / Insist students learn basic academic skills and gain confidence in applying those skills
5 / Design learning strategies and exercises that develop conceptual skills
6 / Communicate the importance of developing good academic habits early
7 / Concentrate on the principles of learning
8 / Leverage effective and/or innovative instructional technologies
9 / Practice patience in working with academically challenged students
10 / Trust their instincts and are proactive in developing their own approaches
11 / Grow professionally and teach by the example of being an excellent student themselves
(Adapted from Noel, Levitz, Saluri & Assoc., 1985)
Student retention literature suggested that freshman should be encouraged to have a goal for their academic studies; as intuited, studies showed that those students who cannot make the link between their classes and their vocation would be those who were most likely not to return to school. The significant risk of academic underperformance is the opportunity cost of missing out on the above average full-time salaries commanded by those who have graduated with a degree in the applied fields of engineering (Berger, 2003). If the university degree is the gateway to earnings, then it would seem that faculty are gatekeepers, or at the least, key makers.
A professor teaching in the freshman and sophomore years has perhaps the greatest opportunity to unlock the most student potential. There appears to be a direct correlation between completing the first and second years without interruption and successfully achieving the degree: Nationally about three of every four successful sophomores go on to become successful graduates (White, 1995). Professor E. wondered how students would respond to varied teaching pedagogies and unique methodologies for delivering specific AEC course content, with the objective to create optimum conditions for opening freshman minds.
Faculty generally believed that coursework should avoid jumping immediately into technical content without first drawing an image of, and a design for, construction education in terms and language these students would accept. Professor E. likened this process to an architectural design analogy; suggesting, if this idea were not given sufficient attention, the freshman learning experience would likely be as successful as a building conceived solely of systematically plotting Mandelbrot sets to a three-dimensional coordinate plane. This meta-process might interest some in the theoretical avante garde, but lacking any context or application it would no doubt overwhelm meaningful societal understanding, leaving many observers behind.
Professor E. believed that a good AEC professor, by contrast, could make this gateway course a more accessible and application-rich experience for freshman. Of course, this would not mean designing the course to a lowest common denominator or otherwise reducing academic rigor. It would mean the professors must gain a better understanding of freshman expectations regarding course objectives. It would also mean the lecturer must step away from the lectern and take the learning into the audience, guiding students through inquiry and engagement.
Teaching Strategies And Pedagogical Content
While Construction Materials was not conceived as a PBL course, professor E. was influenced by many concepts derived from PBL studies. Of particular interest was the prescription to be a Guide on the Side and not just a Sage on the Stage (Stinson, 1995). The objectives for redesigning the introductory course implied active engagement from the student in the experience of learning, creative synthesis of the technical content into a vision of future vocational application, and a personal commitment from the student to lifelong learning. Lectures were one-hour in length and conceived as dialogues in the Socratic Method. Labs were two-hours and were workshops for supported interaction and applied learning events. The following paragraphs describe notable aspects of the lecture and lab coursework (Table 1).
Course Syllabus Excerpts
Class Schedule
Lecture: Mon. and Wed., 12:00 - 12:50 with Professor E.; and, 1:00 - 1:50 with Professor J.
Lab: Mon., 2:00-3:50, with Professor E.; Tue., 2:00-3:50, with Professor A.; Wed., 2:00-3:50, with Professor J.; Thur., 9:00-10:50, with Professor R.; and, Thur., 2:00-3:50, with Professor A.
Textbooks
Ching, F.D.K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. John Wiley Sons, Inc. New York. 1995.
Ching, F.D.K. and Cassandra Adams. Building Construction Illustrated. 3rd ed. John Wiley Sons, Inc. New York. 2001.
Course Objectives
Cognitive
1. Developing a knowledge of and appreciation for the AEC industry
2. Understanding the strong inter-relationship between design and construction
3. Learning effective study and time-management skills
Behavioral
1. Improving oral and written communication skills
2. Applying resources to solve problems
3. Developing skills to function as part of a team