pp10-1745 final report appendices july 31 olt

7/27/2019 PP10-1745 Final Report Appendices July 31 OLT

1/39

Appendices

Appendix A LSAA Conference Paper

Collaborative Building Design Education Using Building Information Modelling 1


2/39



3/39



4/39


5/39



6/39



7/39



8/39



9/39



10/39

Collaborative Building Design Education Using Building Information Modelling

10


11/39


11


12/39

Appendix B Dissemination

Throughout the project, presentations with reviewed papers were made atnational and international conferences and several media reports havebeen published that have featured team members and/or aspects of theproject. These opportunities have been important channels fordissemination of concepts and learnings from the CodeBIM project to thewider AEC community. The publications from the project and can be foundthrough the following links, and are also accessible on our project websitewww.codebim.com.

Journal Papers

Macdonald, J.A & Mills, J.E. (2013). An IPD Approach to ConstructionEducation.Australasian Journal of Construction Economics andBuilding, 13 (2) 93-103.

Conference Papers

1. Tran, A.L.H., Mills, J., Morris, D. & Phillips, M. (2012). All hands ondeck: Collaborative building design education for architects andengineers. In Centre for Engineering and Design Education (Ed.),Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Innovation, Practiceand Research in Engineering Education (EE2012), Coventry University,18-20 September 2012. UK: Loughborough University.

2. Newton, K. & Chileshe, N. (2012). "Awareness, Usage and Benefits ofBuilding Information Modelling (BIM) Adoption The Case of the SouthAustralian Construction Organisations." In S.D. Smith (Ed.),Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Edinburgh, UK, 3-5September 2012. UK: Association of Researchers in ConstructionManagement.

3. Macdonald, J.A. (2012). A framework for collaborative BIM educationacross the AEC disciplines. In Proceedings of Australasian UniversitiesBuilding Education Association (AUBEA) 37th Annual Conference,University of New South Wales, Sydney, 4-6 July 2012 (pp. 223-230).Australia: Australasian Universities Building Education Association.

4. Kelly, S. (2011). "BIM-plementation: a new model for collaborativedesign." In R. Hyde, S. Hayman, & D. Cabrera (Eds.),ANZAScA 2011 :From principles to practice in architectural science: Proceedings of the45th Annual conference of the Australian and New ZealandArchitectural Science Association, Sydney, 17-19 November 2011.Australia:Australian and New Zealand Architectural ScienceAssociation.

5. Macdonald, J.A. (2011). BIM Adding Value by AssistingCollaboration. In P. Kneen (Ed.), Proceedings of LSAA 2011Conference, Novotel, Sydney Olympic Park, 13-14 October 2011.Australia: Lightweight Structures Association.

6. Macdonald, J.A. & Mills, J.E. (2011). "The Potential of BIM to FacilitateCollaborative AEC Education." In American Society of Engineering


12
http://www.codebim.com/http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AJCEB_13_2.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AJCEB_13_2.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Kelly_ANZAScA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Kelly_ANZAScA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LSAA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LSAA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_Mills_ASEE.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_Mills_ASEE.pdfhttp://www.codebim.com/http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AJCEB_13_2.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/AJCEB_13_2.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Tran_Mills_Morris_Phillips_EE2012.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Newton_Chileshe_ARCOM.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Kelly_ANZAScA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Kelly_ANZAScA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LSAA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_LSAA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_Mills_ASEE.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2011_Macdonald_Mills_ASEE.pdf


13/39

Education (ASEE) (Ed.), Proceedings of the 118th ASEE AnnualConference, Vancouver, Canada,26-29June 2011 (pp 1-7). US:American Society of Engineering Education.

7. Macdonald, J.A. & Mills, J.E. (2010). "Can BIM be used to improvebuilding design education?" In P. Tombesi (Ed.), Proceedings of 35th

AUBEA Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 14-16 July 2010, (pp. 1-8).Australia: Australasian Universities Building Education Association.

Other

1. Macdonald, J. (2012, September). A Framework for Collaborative BIMEducation across the AEC Disciplines. Presented at Informas 3rdAnnual Teaching Forum, Brisbane.

2. Bleby, M. (2012, July 5-11).Sharing A Model Solution. BusinessReview Weekly, pp. 42-43.

3. Bleby, M. (2012, July 5). Sharing A Model Solution. www.BRW.com.au.Retrieved fromhttp://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/professions/sharing_model_solution_

JzG4cdzZoUgnWxVCTeU0DN

4. Derricott, T. (May, 2012). Building Information Modelling: Sketching outthe Future. Civil Engineers Australia Magazine, pp. 36-39.

5. Allen Consulting Group. (2010). Productivity in the buildings network:assessing the impacts of Building Information Models, report to theBuilt Environment Innovation and Industry Council. Sydney: AllenConsulting Group.

6. Mitchell, J. (2013, June). Progress on National BIM Initiative. steel

Australia. Vol. 26, No. 8, p 27.

Events

Event

Date

Event Brief description of the purpose of

the event

Number

of

participa

nts

Number

of Higher

Educatio

n

institutio

nsrepresen

ted

Number of

other

institution

s

represent

ed

29/3/11-

6/4/11

MESH

Conference,

Brisbane

Sydney

Melbourne

Members of the project team were

invited as panellists to discuss BIM

and education. This allowed wider

dissemination of the OLT project to

governments and industries

300 + ~ 10 200

(Industry &

Governmen

t)

15/7/11 Bentleys BIM

Demonstration,

UniSA, Adelaide

Members of the UniSA project team

attended a software demonstration

and discuss the OLT project with other

colleges

13 1 1

28/2/12 MESHConference

Project member M. Shelbourncoordinated the buildingSMART

~ 40 2 ~ 25


13
http://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2010_Macdonald_Mills_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2010_Macdonald_Mills_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Macdonald_Informa_forum.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Macdonald_Informa_forum.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BRW_article.pdfhttp://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/professions/sharing_model_solution_JzG4cdzZoUgnWxVCTeU0DNhttp://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/professions/sharing_model_solution_JzG4cdzZoUgnWxVCTeU0DNhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_Engineers_Australia_May_Civil.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_Engineers_Australia_May_Civil.pdfhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/BuildingandConstruction/BEIIC/Pages/Library%20Card/BIMProductivity_FinalReport.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/BuildingandConstruction/BEIIC/Pages/Library%20Card/BIMProductivity_FinalReport.aspxhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2010_Macdonald_Mills_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2010_Macdonald_Mills_AUBEA.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Macdonald_Informa_forum.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Macdonald_Informa_forum.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BRW_article.pdfhttp://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/professions/sharing_model_solution_JzG4cdzZoUgnWxVCTeU0DNhttp://www.brw.com.au/p/sections/professions/sharing_model_solution_JzG4cdzZoUgnWxVCTeU0DNhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_Engineers_Australia_May_Civil.pdfhttp://codebim.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2012_Macdonald_Engineers_Australia_May_Civil.pdfhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/BuildingandConstruction/BEIIC/Pages/Library%20Card/BIMProductivity_FinalReport.aspxhttp://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/BuildingandConstruction/BEIIC/Pages/Library%20Card/BIMProductivity_FinalReport.aspx


14/39

follow up

workshop

Adelaide

Focus for BIM National Initiative. The

aim was to review objectives, actions

and leadership around the adoption of

BIM and to develop a prioritised

national roadmap. Project members J.

Macdonald and A. Tran also attended

the workshop.

21/3/12 IDSS Workshop

UTS, Sydney

Project member J. Macdonald

coordinated the workshop on

Integrated Design and Delivery

Solutions. Project member M.

Shelbourn also attended the

workshop.

~ 30 4 ~ 20


14


15/39

Appendix C Institutional Benchmarking



16/39



17/39



18/39



19/39


20/39



21/39



22/39



23/39



24/39



25/39



26/39

Appendix D BIM Maturity Charting

*eg Fitout, External finishes


TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT IT

Structure/Framing MaterialsSustainability: eg Energy

Use, Green Buildings

Aesthetics* People Communication Teamwork General ITBIM

tools

Fully multidisciplinary level.

Integrate/Collaborate with other

AEC disciplines

Collaboration

Students work within their own

single discipline using BIM tools

and processes to solve real-world

problems relevant to their discipline

Application

Students work in isolation within

their own discipline to access, view

and/or change aspects of existing

BIM models

Manipulation

Introductory Stage. BIM models

used by instructors to illustrate key

concepts to students

Illustration

No BIM tools, processes or

concepts used0 Not Used


27/39



28/39


28


29/39

Appendix E IMAC Framework

A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE BIM EDUCATION

ACROSS THE AEC DISCIPLINES

Jennifer A. Macdonald

University of Technology Sydney, [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The construction industry is beginning to move towards collaborative design practices

worldwide, aided by building information modelling (BIM) tools and processes. However,

the current shortage of building design professionals trained in BIM remains a barrier to

universal adoption of collaborative working practices in the industry. Collaborative working

using BIM requires not only the learning of new technologies/software, but also the learning

of a new way of working. This means moving from a culture of litigation and fragmentation

to one of information sharing, collaboration, and integrated project delivery. Various studies

suggest that universities are lagging behind the construction industry in terms of adopting

BIM technologies and improved collaborative working practices. Current building design

education practice rarely involves collaboration between students training in the architecture,

engineering and construction (AEC) professions. In the majority of universities in the US,

Europe and Australia, AEC students continue to be educated in separate departments, with

little or no integration or collaboration between the disciplines.

The author is currently involved in an Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC)

grant-funded project. The aim of this project is to explore methods of improving collaborative

design education among students of the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC)disciplines, with the aid of BIM tools. This paper describes the IMAC framework that has

been developed from this work to assist educators in benchmarking their own curricula and to

develop strategies for improvement.

Keywords: Building Information Modelling, BIM, construction education, collaborative

working; Framework


29


30/39

INTRODUCTION

The need for a framework to support adoption of collaborative design and BIM education by

Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) schools has been stated previously

(Macdonald & Mills, 2011). The construction industry is moving towards more collaborative

working practices worldwide, aided by BIM tools and processes, but tertiary and professional

education is lagging behind. Just as industry must undergo a paradigm shift from its old

combative culture to one of integration and information sharing, so must academia.

Since engineering and architecture emerged as separate professions from the historic job title

of Master Builder, students of the different AEC disciplines have been educated in isolation

from each other. According to Pressman (2007: p3),

Many academic programs still produce students who expect they will spend their

careers working as heroic, solitary designers. But integrated practice is sure to

stimulate a rethinking of that notion. Pedagogy must focus on teaching not only how

to design and detail, but also how to engage with and lead others, and how to

collaborate with the professionals they are likely to work with later.

It is not only students of the separate AEC disciplines that are studying in isolation from each

other. Architecture, Engineering and Construction Management departments are generally

housed in separate schools or faculties and sometimes even located on separate campuses,

such as at the University of South Australia. Sharing teaching across these academic silos is

a challenge that must be overcome if we are to produce graduates possessing the key skills in

collaborative working using BIM, who will be best placed to drive the industry forward.

WHAT IS BIM AND HOW CAN IT BE USED TO IMPROVE COLLABORATION?

Building Information Modelling (BIM) has no single, widely accepted definition but for the

purposes of this paper we will adopt the definition proposed by Eastman, who defines BIM as

a modeling technology and associated set of processes to produce, communicate and analyse

building models (Eastman et al. 2008: p13). These models consist of:

Building components digital components that have intelligence (i.e. they have

programmable attributes and parametric rules)


30


31/39

Components that include data describing how they behave (this allows them to be

used for analysis, specifications, and quantity take-offs, for example)

Coordinated data all views of the model are represented in an integrated environment

that facilitates and supports coordination and hence all changes made to the model in

one view are automatically reflected in other views

In order to build realistic intelligent models it is necessary to assemble the design and

construction team at earlier stages in the process compared to traditional practice. The team is

creating a virtual representation of the real project and the more information and detail that

can be added, the more accurate the model will be. This is leading to changes in the roles of

AEC professionals, and is even creating new positions that didnt exist ten years ago, such asthe role of BIM manager.

The culture of the construction industry has traditionally been very pugilistic, with minimal

trust between parties on projects, aided by an atmosphere of litigation and punitive contracts.

This lack of trust does not encourage information sharing and collaboration. Often the

professions do not have a deep understanding of the information that each requires at

different stages of the project. For example, large architectural models detailed down to the

level of sanitary fittings may be sent to engineers for use in wind analysis, when only the

basic frame and simplified cladding would be required. Thus time is wasted stripping out and

even rebuilding models, when the models could have been set up more efficiently from the

start of the process and unnecessary detail excluded prior to model exchange. If students are

educated to work collaboratively and to learn the requirements of the other disciplines before

they graduate, this level of misunderstanding is likely to be removed in future, and trust

improved.

HOW CAN WE ENCOURAGE ADOPTION OF COLLABORATIVE EDUCATION

USING BIM?

In the past, academics have resisted teaching technologies such as CAD to students. The

author has frequently heard the refrain were not teaching students to press buttons being

used among educators who believe that BIM is just another CAD tool. However, this misses

the point that BIM is facilitating process, technological, and cultural changes, and its benefits

extend far beyond mere visualisation. There is a great opportunity to engage students more


31


32/39

effectively and to aid understanding of how buildings are constructed. Hardy, quoted in

Deutsch (2011, p202) states:

When I look at the logic of construction means and methods that BIM inherently

teaches, I see the potential to educate

Any major change process is likely to encounter resistance. Some of the difficulties for

academia in introducing BIM may include:

1. Questions about how to fit new topics into a crowded curriculum.

2. Reluctance to change teaching habits established over many years.

3. For those who may have developed their own niche or expertise, there may be

resistance to take on a new subject, about which they are not an expert, or to retrain in

an area they are not familiar with.

4. As the technologies supporting BIM evolve at a rapid pace, academics who have been

out of industry for some time may feel overwhelmed trying to keep abreast of them.

5. The traditional silos of architecture, engineering and construction schools can be

difficult to bridge. As in industry, mistrust of the other professions also exists in

academia, and questions can arise as to who is responsible for (and who will pay for)

cross-disciplinary courses.

In response to the first question, integrating principles of collaboration and BIM technologies

into existing classes throughout the curriculum should reduce the need to develop completely

new courses. In order to encourage this curriculum renewal, the professional bodies should

update their accreditation criteria to reflect the industry need for graduates skilled in BIM and

collaborative working. Accreditation criteria provide the greatest incentive for academic

institutions to instigate changes to their curricula.

The author has attended many BIM workshops and conferences over the past few years and it

seems that general questions from industry have moved on from what is BIM and why

should we adopt it? to we accept that we need to adopt BIM, now how do we go about

doing so? Although AEC academics (with notable exceptions) generally appear to be at the

earlier stage of questioning, it is likely that they will also move towards the question of


32


33/39

implementation, and the framework described below should provide assistance in this.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK

Construct IT for Business is an industry-led, government supported, centre of excellence

promoting innovation and research in the field of IT in construction in the UK. The

organisation produced the IT Self-Assessment Tool(Construct IT, 2000), aimed primarily at

smaller construction companies, to enable businesses to benchmark their level of IT use and

to set targets for improvement. The tool was accompanied by a series of guides to how to

carry out these improvements. The author was able to put these guides into practice in a

small company very successfully, and decided to adopt the format of the tool and guides as a

basis for creating the framework to assist adoption of collaborative design education and BIM

into AEC curricula. The education framework also comprises two components: a

benchmarking tool and a separate guide to implementation.

THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK IMAC

Fig 1: The four stages making up theIMACframework

The top level of the framework is broken into four stages, relating to different levels of

achievement. These stages are; Illustration, Manipulation, Application and Collaboration

(IMAC). The stages have been mapped to various levels on the taxonomy of learning

proposed by Bloom et al (1956). Blooms taxonomy is divided into three domains: cognitive,

affective, and psychomotor. Typical educational goals concerned with recollection or

recognition of knowledge and development of intellectual skills fall under Blooms cognitive

domain. Krathwohl et al (1964) further developed the taxonomy into the affective domain,


33


34/39

which concerns internalisation of knowledge, i.e. changes in interest, attitudes and values. As

the IMAC framework aims to assist development of both technical (I.T and discipline-

specific) and interpersonal (collaborative and teamwork) skills, it straddles the cognitive and

affective domains.

The framework does not dictate in which academic year each stage should be introduced.

Students from the different AEC disciplines study courses of varying lengths and some skills

are introduced earlier in some courses than others. For example, students of architecture tend

to be introduced to modelling tools from first year whereas students of structural engineering

might only be introduced to them in third year. It may also be possible to progress between

stages within one academic year.

Fig 2: Blooms Taxonomy of Learning: Cognitive Domain (left) and Affective Domain (right) Sources: Bloomet al (1956) and Krathwohl et al (1964)

The framework also considers suitable delivery methods at each stage, aiming to achieve

deeper levels of learning as students progress through their education. Koltich and Dean

(1999), describe two paradigms of teaching; the transmission model and the engaged

critical model. The latter emphasises the need for students to engage with what they are

studying and thus develop a deeper level of understanding, and promotes the use of teaching

methods such as problem based learning. The philosopher Seneca the Younger is generally

credited with the statement by teaching we learn and anecdotal evidence suggests that

teaching others is one of the best methods of gaining deeper knowledge about a subject. The

Learning Pyramid, attributed to the National Teaching Laboratory, has been quoted often in

educational literature, though as Magennis & Farrell (2005) point out, the original research


34


35/39

source supporting the percentages of retained learning cannot be traced. However, Magennis

& Farrell (ibid) conducted research that generally corroborates the order of activities in the

pyramid, in terms of the amount of learning that is retained following each type of activity

(Fig 3). As practice by doing and teach others/immediate use of learning are the activities

shown to provide the deepest levels of learning, the IMAC framework aims to promote them

as preferred delivery methods.


35


36/39

Avera

ge

Retention

Rate

Fig 3: Version of the NTL Learning

Pyramid as described inMagennis & Farrell (2005)

The four stages of the IMAC framework are described in detail, below.

Illustration Stage (Knowledge/Comprehension and Receiving/Responding)

This is an introductory stage. Building Information Models are used to illustrate key

concepts to students and students will typically be taught in their separate disciplines at this

stage. Models will have sufficient detail to allow lecturers/tutors to highlight different

components/connections to show how buildings are constructed, insulated and waterproofed

for example.

Manipulation Stage (Comprehension/Application and Responding/Valuing)

At this stage, students start to interact with and manipulate existing models themselves. They

will be required to make simple changes and/or create basic elements within the models in

relation to their disciplines. They are also continuing to develop their teamwork and basic IT

literacy skills, in addition to developing discipline-specific knowledge.

Application Stage (Application/Analysis and Valuing/Organising)

At this stage, students have acquired basic theoretical knowledge in their disciplines and are

starting to apply this knowledge to solve discipline-related problems. For architecture

students, they will start to build building information models from scratch and learn how to

set the models up for effective inter-disciplinary collaboration. Engineers will start to use

tools to analyse models using exports from Building Information Models. Construction


36


37/39

managers will develop 4D and 5D schedules, and plan logistics and materials ordering using

models from other disciplines. All disciplines will be taught principles of Value Engineering

and Sustainable design and how BIM tools can be used to assist these. They will also be

introduced to the roles that the other disciplines play in a construction team, and how models

are set-up to facilitate information exchange.

Collaboration Stage (Synthesis/Evaluation and Characterising)

At this stage, the students from the different disciplines come together to work on joint

projects. Ideally this will involve groups containing a student from each AEC discipline.

Learning through teaching others can be encouraged by pairing senior engineering and

construction students with junior architecture students, for example. Ideally, real-world

problems will be given to the students to solve. To ease students into the process, they can be

given partly-finished models to start with, and then be asked to make some changes to these

models due to new project information arising. The students will also learn about the types

of contract that facilitate BIM and collaborative working, and will continue to learn about

group dynamics and improving teamwork.

MAPPING EXISTING COURSES AT AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES

The work described in this paper has been supported by an Australian Learning and Teaching

Council (ALTC) grant, involving partners from the University of Technology Sydney, the

University of South Australia and the University of Newcastle. The benchmarking

component of the IMAC framework has been used to benchmark existing courses at the three

institutions and to plot targets for future curriculum developments. The framework

recognises that the different disciplines will not be aiming to achieve full collaboration in all

courses or areas for example, architecture graduates will be expected to be able to create

full BIM models from scratch whereas engineers and construction managers would usuallyonly be expected to be able to manipulate existing models for their own analysis purposes.

The framework tool thus suggests different targets (shaded, refer Fig 4) for the different

discipline areas, and it is expected that these will be mapped to professional accreditation

criteria as these are developed.


37


38/39

Fig 4 Example of Mapping exercise for a CM course, with suggested targets shaded

CONCLUSION

The mapping exercise is being completed at the three ALTC partnership institutions. The

data gathered and the How to component of the framework will be used to assist

redevelopment of existing courses. The courses will be then be evaluated and the results

published by the end of 2013. A website is also being developed to assist AEC educators

across Australasia. The author welcomes feedback.

REFERENCES

Bloom, B.S., Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). The

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I:

Cognitive Domain, David McKay Company, New York, N.Y

Deutsch, R. (2011). BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey

Eastman, C., Teicholz, P., Sacks, R., Liston, K. (2008).BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building

Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers, and Contractors, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey


38


39/39

Koltich, E. & Dean, A.V. (1999). Student Ratings of Instruction in the USA: Hidden

assumptions and missing conceptions about good teaching, Studies in Higher Education

24(1), 27-42

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964). The Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain , David

McKay Company, New York, N.Y

Macdonald, J.A. & Mills, J.E. (2011). 'The Potential of BIM to Facilitate Collaborative AEC

Education', American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Vancouver,

Canada, June 2011 inProceedings of the 118th ASEE Annual Conference, American Society

of Engineering Education, Vancouver, Canada.

Magennis, S. & Farrell, A. (2005). Teaching and Learning Activities: Expanding the

Repertoire to Support Student Learning, in Emerging Issues in the Practice of University

Learning and Teaching, ONeill, G., McMullin, B. (eds), AISHE Dublin

Pressman, A. (2007). Integrated Practice in Perspective: A New Model for the Architectural

Profession, Architectural Record, May 2007, http://archrecord.construction.com/

practice/projDelivery/0705proj-3.asp (accessed March 2012)

pp10-1745 final report appendices july 31 olt

Documents