<%BANNER%>

Technology Skills and Learning Style Assessment of Building Construction Students

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022320/00001

Material Information

Title: Technology Skills and Learning Style Assessment of Building Construction Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Manthorne, Amanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, learning, social, technology, web
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether the benefits of technology are being realized and appropriately presented in construction education. The purpose of this thesis was to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of certain technologies and (2) discern a learning style typical of building construction students. The goal of this study is to identify technology-related deficiencies and formulate an efficient method of lesson delivery relevant to the classroom and the industry. A technology skills assessment and learning style questionnaire were administered to two groups: undergraduate (34 students) and graduate students (41 students). The data was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed using statistical tools. The technology skill assessment focused on the students' awareness and level of use of domain specific tools (AutoCAD, BIM) and web-based tools (social networks, online forums, etc.). Relationships between the two samples were tested using the Chi-squared test at a 95% level of confidence. The results of the two samples in were significantly different in regard to 2D and 3D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. No significant difference was found in regard to 4D-CAD, social networks, and online forums. The learning styles among undergraduate and graduate students differ. Instructors should tailor their lesson delivery to students' preferences. Presently, students have a low level of awareness and use of technologies such as 4D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. Effective classroom delivery and implementation of these technologies in the classroom will produce better prepared students who will influence positive change within the construction industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Amanda Manthorne.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Olbina, Svetlana.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022320:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022320/00001

Material Information

Title: Technology Skills and Learning Style Assessment of Building Construction Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Manthorne, Amanda
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, learning, social, technology, web
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether the benefits of technology are being realized and appropriately presented in construction education. The purpose of this thesis was to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of certain technologies and (2) discern a learning style typical of building construction students. The goal of this study is to identify technology-related deficiencies and formulate an efficient method of lesson delivery relevant to the classroom and the industry. A technology skills assessment and learning style questionnaire were administered to two groups: undergraduate (34 students) and graduate students (41 students). The data was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed using statistical tools. The technology skill assessment focused on the students' awareness and level of use of domain specific tools (AutoCAD, BIM) and web-based tools (social networks, online forums, etc.). Relationships between the two samples were tested using the Chi-squared test at a 95% level of confidence. The results of the two samples in were significantly different in regard to 2D and 3D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. No significant difference was found in regard to 4D-CAD, social networks, and online forums. The learning styles among undergraduate and graduate students differ. Instructors should tailor their lesson delivery to students' preferences. Presently, students have a low level of awareness and use of technologies such as 4D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. Effective classroom delivery and implementation of these technologies in the classroom will produce better prepared students who will influence positive change within the construction industry.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Amanda Manthorne.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Olbina, Svetlana.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022320:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAADH INGEST_TIME 2010-11-10T02:46:16Z PACKAGE UFE0022320_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 54041 DFID F20101109_AABZCZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH manthorne_a_Page_07.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
75fcc5c27888d84b9817fdf929e5023e
SHA-1
33b901adcfaa1d9e5644b9bf1b5c7c26e6645f0e
96454 F20101109_AABZMU UFE0022320_00001.xml FULL
9e704cfe043fc948f15d1faae2e02633
27fabfe5932252d22e45b0e0c19373ff9f322a7e
25271604 F20101109_AABZHX manthorne_a_Page_61.tif
55567e8f57f8344dbcf7868a12068412
29f77842a1c722acefee140094d64b2b1f6903fd
64707 F20101109_AABZAB manthorne_a_Page_46.jpg
7fbb44b3ee8afcd188d3d0529fc0ef18
0984c4543e6385b53ce7d11f0be0c12111e97460
2364 F20101109_AABZMV manthorne_a_Page_01thm.jpg
393c3871a21e226cacd964fee23743c9
d86cb7232e5867f27e3157ef627ac3b582d7e2cb
F20101109_AABZHY manthorne_a_Page_62.tif
82945ae1c900c07db2654034ccec31ba
0ff7f38dcb3d32650ad069fdcd0684e978bb4303
21484 F20101109_AABZAC manthorne_a_Page_62.pro
b98084741dcb3078085cffbcb5261130
9f2c533d5c7a6321cfb3e89cfa7d64bf1b6dda94
4019 F20101109_AABZMW manthorne_a_Page_03.QC.jpg
dc3c54ff67d0a9b74419de3e8b7a575c
833333e05cc4827b9435bb9e8f47f3dd87983276
1051945 F20101109_AABZFA manthorne_a_Page_23.jp2
9c59a98792d0c80a6f222e4d6ca114ea
0c4a21d58f095e6acd85902a1cdb45fe4bb1ae18
966 F20101109_AABZHZ manthorne_a_Page_02.pro
a359a697f264ab0f08b35440dcf38fab
055535305d10a728488fd127ff5c0dd9218a1c2b
1051944 F20101109_AABZAD manthorne_a_Page_33.jp2
09ae90c60d371b5cd1bf10a8a9b52153
70ecd35a1e37bf16fcceb798f666d96f53db65f8
1650 F20101109_AABZMX manthorne_a_Page_03thm.jpg
ee0e9da7f5dad67ecb282138a379d1e9
9c48b6825de285e4384532479ed3f501168ebbb0
314198 F20101109_AABZFB manthorne_a_Page_25.jp2
055d9fdacaba2a4ebf9175e569f3c0db
c68a0ef1c26201dc9cf3a783bc4323b420dc0741
7235 F20101109_AABZAE manthorne_a_Page_34thm.jpg
320026b2ba39a9050a15152f8e36cd76
4e696d808981916728b9cb5bf83668f067da8edd
8957 F20101109_AABZMY manthorne_a_Page_04.QC.jpg
24ddbc4cab424d3eb389d3616a25dcf2
8213de2d11fa9138bb5d15fae0adf8bd1df57137
1051907 F20101109_AABZFC manthorne_a_Page_27.jp2
ac911e3fcda3bb7b9518a6e589e7a01c
5dba1482c20ec46281e536b971bf2911f904483e
2301 F20101109_AABZAF manthorne_a_Page_53.txt
caffa537711a3f34cf1c4c988e56406e
72f7e6a3357760c7b454d9024d46698cc4bb03ee
658 F20101109_AABZKA manthorne_a_Page_08.txt
2d92603201f23d932746ab351e122078
4a5f2322999f9dc793dd3be0614096d4ac2e3967
2797 F20101109_AABZMZ manthorne_a_Page_04thm.jpg
a3c41ad592d8ebe00ce6e182c3c8b14c
61cc1df1383a89c40c05f92abe6767d74124e87b
1051964 F20101109_AABZFD manthorne_a_Page_28.jp2
88b71a370cdd0770712d8dac316d63fc
4a26e814bbbdc003950ff8544a2d596ab2812aa5
71509 F20101109_AABZAG manthorne_a_Page_22.jpg
5382dc0c0700d4834891561aa390c90c
51992a70367a3b4dfe9112b1bddb034a1c611e55
474 F20101109_AABZKB manthorne_a_Page_09.txt
d6fff4d88b5af3a8ffcf31225991b492
d0b908eb9fd6b01f2af553781db89a6da398b921
1051976 F20101109_AABZFE manthorne_a_Page_29.jp2
88c52d2b757eac9ac70270c0059ffa18
9162a0d0f20a5c078a503889e3f9427a7d658c29
31068 F20101109_AABZAH manthorne_a_Page_61.pro
4e3bf4b4f7ba951816a97029be037409
9425d6ffbab1f68ed71cf413b33266e984eda496
26851 F20101109_AABZPA manthorne_a_Page_51.QC.jpg
eef6bb49b076f57922f62c747ff45a75
de1b509831c4605456c44fa977144a2ef6c0a7ab
2094 F20101109_AABZKC manthorne_a_Page_10.txt
24d22d2791829e4e961f45769d2b67c2
9066f38a32c3cc3bf05236659150fff4dc680a8f
1051971 F20101109_AABZFF manthorne_a_Page_30.jp2
abbee6a797d5f68404a4a379779c640f
705819405e7e2ab053eba7825d3ad7a418174b32
483 F20101109_AABZAI manthorne_a_Page_14.txt
578a21756b057fe92ad24aee990d39aa
047d66add6c4f515642319e0b77c3861feb0972d
7010 F20101109_AABZPB manthorne_a_Page_51thm.jpg
ed56683c22361e39cbf001c6b8409d1a
2d53709bd3d9f431a90f8d6d6fc7b127876b9929
1051954 F20101109_AABZFG manthorne_a_Page_34.jp2
8abfb9bf90868e6df57dcc067a1eb3c8
e58d43d5cf943b597ec3beed20f05ddb08050e00
1051959 F20101109_AABZAJ manthorne_a_Page_44.jp2
985b7c30fbb9093238a31cd2b2112633
943fc598a036034a6fe9cfb0c580faacf907fa73
2036 F20101109_AABZKD manthorne_a_Page_12.txt
62c1a585695ce9c70c7ed8814889a428
367998e78da0e302066507b7e20da4b4dfe4c8be
6468 F20101109_AABZPC manthorne_a_Page_52thm.jpg
8423b5d7c0ef861ecfe783f7732efc64
9db5f05f25b14d1812222dafc8b4def730b80d0e
458464 F20101109_AABZFH manthorne_a_Page_36.jp2
caedade10057d9260dade6724020d180
f7f8284e7091d0205639aed317bfc3e6856d62c7
1297 F20101109_AABZAK manthorne_a_Page_61.txt
b1ecae2da76c7e2e44f42d7afa4e3359
febe6b76daa4b3398388b92f7c1929621d5acf41
1911 F20101109_AABZKE manthorne_a_Page_15.txt
ee5150519a300d65341e31fad235acf9
7481ca59d62c3af3b94abb84dc22a1b4eb71f4f0
6198 F20101109_AABZPD manthorne_a_Page_54thm.jpg
e25fab156270696d267f37e0ea04735f
c973c34cf338d81b48406b8dd3eef3d67a0582a8
410269 F20101109_AABZFI manthorne_a_Page_37.jp2
7e1a6ed5823f8e3cb8795abfe6a59500
6f49af5886fd11d6635d79c8e19766c7f9b2d916
890 F20101109_AABZAL manthorne_a_Page_62.txt
3552b015afcc647adde0c9d683b8bb1d
63309b020e3d56f1a410e240c481f3d7c145c0aa
1861 F20101109_AABZKF manthorne_a_Page_16.txt
8c043c46bd6ed24d090f847975b0a9d2
f28ebe257e1af726381f7dcce88433058fb447c6
420508 F20101109_AABZFJ manthorne_a_Page_38.jp2
268820aeeb55ac283d9b31134ba66512
8f82ffd53529f201b17f018bb8c949ce3a36628b
37370 F20101109_AABZAM manthorne_a_Page_40.jpg
38919fb4353622e9673613a4e84e6d9e
bfdd991f78e8ac3cdd27e2a1547ce59421bfcb7c
2018 F20101109_AABZKG manthorne_a_Page_17.txt
1de768037827a109cd4492b944b62ecc
23392f2cdf4cec9998802dfcbd34164b761dba1e
4295 F20101109_AABZPE manthorne_a_Page_55thm.jpg
015b79f0440c65ecaf44c69e06069b91
6c98a02794cab8790213c5fa82616e45d0c6488b
906124 F20101109_AABZFK manthorne_a_Page_39.jp2
ad5c682ede20c6d0484bbfb3991cae55
6ddefe17a1327d28a7415b1e2e0320b7f1fae02c
F20101109_AABZAN manthorne_a_Page_57.tif
17c04ca2d6c7d8dffa5242c45aa02b76
a5c27828cf9a9cef5f1325d72bc8efe458b604ee
2006 F20101109_AABZKH manthorne_a_Page_18.txt
ddc5078982bbd6fc695631cda2e580cf
b59e3d3295c179c05c42beb4305593c752148bd6
5061 F20101109_AABZPF manthorne_a_Page_56thm.jpg
36fccbb7ed95bab43f28ca7c1349d650
366aa0574cf4204c823f807676ecb9789ff2597a
411955 F20101109_AABZFL manthorne_a_Page_40.jp2
ddd2187d1144ab4ad54b93b220688f01
7afc508928ffdca585ad81f91e30259601e16054
31438 F20101109_AABZAO manthorne_a_Page_42.pro
d6b27463932bfc0272aff9989e5e3344
c56fe19acf39da5b659f22ae42a845aaa71df9f6
1945 F20101109_AABZKI manthorne_a_Page_19.txt
759333ed8860ab45cb29980801c9e102
9e983eaaac1f7ec68b60792a0496198cd976dacc
19580 F20101109_AABZPG manthorne_a_Page_57.QC.jpg
7638675b5acb302a671a9b5ac285477d
678b7ee5f792b56d60b3c18e6fa4b36c50bc3bc4
831489 F20101109_AABZFM manthorne_a_Page_42.jp2
50c71b0b8825ad268663c37de0b17c4c
5eb66dfb278060332ace00a3747b564d79fae97b
13102 F20101109_AABZAP manthorne_a_Page_48.QC.jpg
329e3a8501054f6631c0ee8c55dd052a
c7f2f5fb97a5188d31c91c9b3745d65346b6450f
2135 F20101109_AABZKJ manthorne_a_Page_20.txt
ef6538eb29ec3f9cce69d7c611f61f4b
be56050e32b0a3e44bffe6151e7246c82e7551d9
5346 F20101109_AABZPH manthorne_a_Page_57thm.jpg
50ac9e2a7934bb881ce34f1ca6f64082
7d9822f257b3f52b061053dd614987f4647789e8
816809 F20101109_AABZFN manthorne_a_Page_43.jp2
8dcc7db491283d3da82f9df2948bbaeb
c1dd1e16f900594f0d9bb995f1d396c6deeed495
77241 F20101109_AABZAQ manthorne_a_Page_21.jpg
0ca44163b076f92b5ae8987687c6c86e
0c3fce94c4de2d78dd22e39326e8057500feb650
1924 F20101109_AABZKK manthorne_a_Page_21.txt
5a21bfa54e1de55b6926f33dd2142def
74f8a866f669fe9f92a95db3c38d54ff6668d39d
19586 F20101109_AABZPI manthorne_a_Page_58.QC.jpg
7c5f251b9ae4556e1a48baf62beaedf5
a6482415b913029d248645452bd8d589deb07140
1051982 F20101109_AABZFO manthorne_a_Page_45.jp2
8b7fecd2121467c207a2467d028579c0
e76e4f58094eff924e00709bdd7bec31a5565c44
11640 F20101109_AABZAR manthorne_a_Page_38.pro
1a2f175ae4e647f24600cf95d168b3a9
bb597ec855f06198a7a65d6a522036e7e454873a
1902 F20101109_AABZKL manthorne_a_Page_22.txt
ad44682e61560e33744ed53a5b7470f2
0f9591797aff3244ed9fc5c604759cd823c62747
16114 F20101109_AABZPJ manthorne_a_Page_59.QC.jpg
a779b1459cb4be5a634c48de7668fa36
925df8e94c6e239634b70ffce56b7089aae6ef80
882763 F20101109_AABZFP manthorne_a_Page_46.jp2
aee0459e5e19c3dd4139ef9eec000413
d2d9a551027f33d27901e6ca51e6c923e9e8161c
41553 F20101109_AABYYR manthorne_a_Page_07.pro
8a04f198352bffbd0ff2c14615121fdc
be31d06234916999e74a075f8b954384e1df5ede
4225 F20101109_AABZAS manthorne_a_Page_40thm.jpg
f31097cc4ff93fdf482675428f47464d
89140e90d9f8d24291750fe31f45c54df2170fb5
2173 F20101109_AABZKM manthorne_a_Page_23.txt
28aa7ef2bdb41e24da212009fbc2a503
b09ef637f5f4c9fb310e8348b23bbd141cc2a6f1
4587 F20101109_AABZPK manthorne_a_Page_59thm.jpg
1aa9f743fe8eb39015c3fb18f982d862
d2c76c389f7c89004fbd6c8199e1e723c2cf6cd7
592999 F20101109_AABZFQ manthorne_a_Page_48.jp2
05eb983aa89f11598693fae4b4252f73
aa2490447ac1dfd01f1ec6576eff38caaf46d0ae
F20101109_AABYYS manthorne_a_Page_56.tif
b73f3b28ea180f01abd231a0972a4575
fe46b0671895af0542da373fda0af39eac9cea87
37626 F20101109_AABZAT manthorne_a_Page_36.jpg
6d3c8b718130c0d500217b682e1cb94e
5302a62c334d5a908f33df38befe4e115bc0a89d
2063 F20101109_AABZKN manthorne_a_Page_24.txt
84150f0ab5544952cb21435099ef095d
17669a2dd9c3da091c42f7a9c220bfadff9a542d
3813 F20101109_AABZPL manthorne_a_Page_61thm.jpg
f779effa1e7f8727abf9d48c8e01be3e
56a24356a5632c3291ad86c6fd4a87499db43616
636617 F20101109_AABZFR manthorne_a_Page_49.jp2
2fba645b8da88f643213f5490bba9645
0bf386e0d034aca2bf20a25a306e7811aece5e51
52833 F20101109_AABYYT manthorne_a_Page_49.jpg
5d466888d67bc517c866b9d9ee4b8b59
40ac7e04900d59bc270fc7a20640813bf0d8b6c3
81103 F20101109_AABZAU manthorne_a_Page_13.jpg
2680fff0c38a14c7c4986906f01392da
3d0eb51c161aab14f4cadf90bad843880e33a1d1
538 F20101109_AABZKO manthorne_a_Page_25.txt
c5a135aa8fe75c9ff72085f4ba1ab0a0
df7eaab8e9a5e87dc4c8363b955fa5b9511fe9b8
12649 F20101109_AABZPM manthorne_a_Page_62.QC.jpg
91840b2b40c92aa1dc987a9ab140193c
ea2fab54c14321f5c01accba793a07aabacdaed2
F20101109_AABZFS manthorne_a_Page_51.jp2
d3b1433fbfdc55c65d81c4b37f16cc87
d621dcd6e31fda219347971c12417dc926176bbd
19476 F20101109_AABYYU manthorne_a_Page_43.QC.jpg
d256ac1d836082b6476280c7b81d1184
13a80867019f30ee8cabe020525046d4a6d8c866
1888 F20101109_AABZKP manthorne_a_Page_26.txt
0a34a4c6d745ef2c5513f533b646cced
81a630c02274005b2b92989b5edd31c238704950
3776 F20101109_AABZPN manthorne_a_Page_62thm.jpg
8440227541a1bf48f0752965fed98f9b
d73b9fd5f1d85de32a33e6f052734b9f881b52a3
1051938 F20101109_AABZFT manthorne_a_Page_52.jp2
6ba2e4031d2eb22dd25cfe478687dd04
91eea56b8554994680b335627e8ba83c8f2ba747
F20101109_AABYYV manthorne_a_Page_51.tif
6a638e8b615308fc2952e9ac35ce0564
f7e3f0815fb7a393077f4000918fe0c388f43357
F20101109_AABZAV manthorne_a_Page_23.tif
dc1b611877bb9d40c3e75d608eafabf5
c08982c19029e02f0f7655a6531bd4d747b4f981
2064 F20101109_AABZKQ manthorne_a_Page_27.txt
c18cd9729622258319298fc2e50e799d
49a7d745c6515165bf226d421b53fc08ff96ea7a
1051958 F20101109_AABZFU manthorne_a_Page_53.jp2
38125698a0b7e056f22e76c1a3b96528
9c9ed05ad40508a5d784e722c4432d76814fe88b
F20101109_AABYYW manthorne_a_Page_54.tif
41842bb637a053cfa360a5db1b924119
a13cdeda617b457772866c7f24acf1491274bd36
80569 F20101109_AABZAW manthorne_a_Page_24.jpg
e6f5da45ced00cb0649c61fdf7d1128f
d39989b43945854785e2f7d98b11f8a102af4946
1950 F20101109_AABZKR manthorne_a_Page_28.txt
75ae73df38f46926c9acbcba2130db26
c2e5539de172bdad93c3aa7e40f2abebebffffdc
1051985 F20101109_AABZFV manthorne_a_Page_54.jp2
6189ee895404f364ec83ed71286f06a0
781ca9f1f3132402826d3875f0f83f174e345a07
26138 F20101109_AABYYX manthorne_a_Page_33.QC.jpg
c9d3cf05f0471f4ecd9bc5ca776c33de
47f56a7551f437bf04918922570d664ce5e7ec40
6826 F20101109_AABZAX manthorne_a_Page_11.QC.jpg
cf7e60e8112303b2569dbfc57f04d681
cfc5c897c031a502909539385939512256517d9f
1914 F20101109_AABZKS manthorne_a_Page_29.txt
add44d6043064d7886a4832aaf132e2d
e2a643899098962168bf5acf571a2437e53751f4
744711 F20101109_AABZFW manthorne_a_Page_55.jp2
6eb67787f916bad1d44c5cdc0fcf310b
ac1cfa30c6561a8131771aff9e2ac80ec0662fc2
2046 F20101109_AABYYY manthorne_a_Page_32.txt
7170a8ec41861892a41c8b194fa06a44
836b2002d06d65c4c1cc997abf8052af191ccb9d
321781 F20101109_AABZAY manthorne_a_Page_04.jp2
73af4691310db87337d48990f5f19b26
831ce1aba9788833dae2fa253f3ea9c30dd74897
1862 F20101109_AABZKT manthorne_a_Page_31.txt
b25e910f14f120565ae412b28cdfbc10
143b0b6449a60506cef669936aa9afdf6239121d
832889 F20101109_AABZFX manthorne_a_Page_56.jp2
53810b12b596c567b6df117b118d099d
61295cb1b128d73b6a40facb3c6a5b22175b13a4
1051980 F20101109_AABYYZ manthorne_a_Page_17.jp2
90c8e566a5ea1b41638b2f0f74987296
afbca05cbad1a1087ce6af6d2129724adc8a624e
2298 F20101109_AABZAZ manthorne_a_Page_45.txt
a1cf10b793c6fc5cbaf4213886d373d6
8f8f5b88d511ce4bb96a8e0003d9742d05f29422
1999 F20101109_AABZKU manthorne_a_Page_34.txt
73b4068a4656f18a7145d62380bd7e12
cedcdc75388a95332df5f27adfc78dd9ca348fa5
981755 F20101109_AABZFY manthorne_a_Page_57.jp2
5116503bd1c1290642fed6ce17932949
858a851aa5bb7217d18d9807861d298573acc82b
2014 F20101109_AABZKV manthorne_a_Page_35.txt
070d734ec6011b3bd8061a6a247ac872
1dfe62e342c64ed3b7774b3eb382973be5e472cb
938604 F20101109_AABZFZ manthorne_a_Page_58.jp2
ee55e35e065a8f839c4b7990cb7b0697
8dedbee816e780bece931f827afb54ccdb0a7bf0
732 F20101109_AABZKW manthorne_a_Page_36.txt
412cc469260367b44ecbdfd12d802bc2
c2468dbd8d89a1980796aa8f1b4f3ec263fc6a45
20575 F20101109_AABZDA manthorne_a_Page_08.jpg
20850bbec1e6d45cbc15dc8bbab3033a
a87cbf15a78ca564746731d7156f93a311626dac
725 F20101109_AABZKX manthorne_a_Page_38.txt
aa20b0cd6d360435ccfd6b47da95c4e8
cf08255c76ce0eb9ac68fea77f995fb01d4aafaf
22458 F20101109_AABZDB manthorne_a_Page_09.jpg
9bcd557576e2f38aca6b13c49d1d9ead
06a33a2d0475896ef2fca2cf7bd314c18854cab6
1787 F20101109_AABZKY manthorne_a_Page_39.txt
761f1b75e2be7ee669325e3bde317488
c21901a49772a9fc3d2c115ad4641c3b5d0fa828
79993 F20101109_AABZDC manthorne_a_Page_10.jpg
4214a640074c9c6be3c82aa21d9718ba
92ee858df5075614f6975224f4943127b3c45f84
89690 F20101109_AABZIA manthorne_a_Page_05.pro
3032791ace94c4e499ec23a6e6018df1
14bb2db9ae46185ceb65973c09ae05486644db09
557 F20101109_AABZKZ manthorne_a_Page_40.txt
8e301060fc794e02c4e3493d500d5749
65ef44f496b8138749a5b4a5f9f436fe8114092b
21279 F20101109_AABZDD manthorne_a_Page_11.jpg
832547fb069624a887c3d47f9039066f
a0091071a1182eac4fb48c073daea12e8b3fbfc5
97770 F20101109_AABZIB manthorne_a_Page_06.pro
aa236f9be71c027e824508546c748f17
7f97819c0cf945248065c88eb9795688c60ee37e
71318 F20101109_AABZDE manthorne_a_Page_15.jpg
4914017d0989353300cb94a322dcc725
e67d799fc22784bf55c64a8806a3631b966f796d
15157 F20101109_AABZIC manthorne_a_Page_08.pro
be75d016db6c0439e32c9fe20c1c4915
48e0abe234fcf0033516f5b342a8097e1d5f954c
77721 F20101109_AABZDF manthorne_a_Page_16.jpg
ad5debc1dcebbb621259045c2c68029e
473445033ad5003ffdfda63d94de9729bb6ac1c9
19864 F20101109_AABZNA manthorne_a_Page_05.QC.jpg
bd4ddd6154a377006dde1527014754fa
4bed78ec14bb6359241d67c0dfe518263ff7b4df
9591 F20101109_AABZID manthorne_a_Page_09.pro
8dd7da5c480bd61623610ca8eebf1281
fa85f682d8afa0bc5cf829afea1844bfdd43a70a
81017 F20101109_AABZDG manthorne_a_Page_18.jpg
d5af09e23c0972f98c496318177639d6
49ed4619426b01e7e8ee968ec151d59fc208e854
4914 F20101109_AABZNB manthorne_a_Page_06thm.jpg
3d9ca5194088cbdaf94d2c31b1d44289
b441364603c2068af57e2f576c351b8499098523
48216 F20101109_AABZIE manthorne_a_Page_10.pro
f718b41214254bb63bc301a1d325f784
b60c36f69d1683f616c3d4045e569c35836288b6
77660 F20101109_AABZDH manthorne_a_Page_19.jpg
141f19e32373093380972b9cb61f7496
91b74cbed6ef5f568dbed2259ab57693da14e7b9
8991 F20101109_AABZIF manthorne_a_Page_11.pro
ad12455847a8942b34b688732caf4659
b30fff84e5ce2f0b90300afa9da496abfdd2d4ac
83965 F20101109_AABZDI manthorne_a_Page_20.jpg
f6967b3c36d9c8994e663c6ac780012e
2a5a8492fd304b41c32e36e9d22e5224d72ab32d
16220 F20101109_AABZNC manthorne_a_Page_07.QC.jpg
0d4eb8df108cbc1ab1a14aaa0d0fa7cd
8347b64baba43f5003e7239a16279bbf2cae8877
47498 F20101109_AABZIG manthorne_a_Page_12.pro
a43a431406194742220b2524d5e6ea1c
8a2810ed84be6f382ba4d9b73845358bf242afca
88325 F20101109_AABZDJ manthorne_a_Page_23.jpg
6c57e805327dc8a430cc54465e555a6e
ba75d2ab5b5065b3e0fd3163e8fa5521377a2133
4453 F20101109_AABZND manthorne_a_Page_07thm.jpg
293f90dbd35b6fe0b5eeb522928e7483
414a4a3b437f9cfc467e4b605d0b957339b609d6
51791 F20101109_AABZIH manthorne_a_Page_13.pro
1727c91a0621ecdefca20f0f61d7ba2d
f300463f7a2a18d74d78e468506e5fe7f6ace7c4
27785 F20101109_AABZDK manthorne_a_Page_25.jpg
492ce2b463b73e794e48c615ae7a28ff
57ac2dfd603bfc4785b6bfce0638f470a702a160
6333 F20101109_AABZNE manthorne_a_Page_08.QC.jpg
6e787ad2b93532e222cd0d67fc215473
7eb0974b68fc746a4d5f8305fa1b5b510e82ed0d
12152 F20101109_AABZII manthorne_a_Page_14.pro
4c5d7416d2057936d1e2764ef4693898
bbaf3fa97f802510e40f1051aa484deda00e2940
71571 F20101109_AABZDL manthorne_a_Page_26.jpg
52275e482d8d563063b4cd489e65bf43
7ca6e4721dbb4e67a982b0f1666b82c2ba651e87
2423 F20101109_AABZNF manthorne_a_Page_09thm.jpg
e16bfd991d4db645adff376e2ddce1bf
cf2cc256c2dc17cdb489998d528569f63c2c3743
46759 F20101109_AABZIJ manthorne_a_Page_16.pro
291dfa25e725de0009d3ffa41dcd5851
fcd719c57af00748ad637f4c526c16d66fabd4b6
82037 F20101109_AABZDM manthorne_a_Page_27.jpg
1235d2f51925951f7254aaf41dd8efa9
ef9eb8e611e9612e9aa0b6fbd98c761869c33724
24495 F20101109_AABZNG manthorne_a_Page_10.QC.jpg
c3e2205e9fe9c0ce6f852856289bde46
fe77f2e405d834690f803a9e42eb4d800fd12a1b
50837 F20101109_AABZIK manthorne_a_Page_18.pro
fcbe1938c9a4811b6b1e37736b0c6548
4f939046006e8f7701b3698af3db53da2ef5a061
81134 F20101109_AABZDN manthorne_a_Page_28.jpg
9ec645bc1ca64d928b7d048ca98bdc02
cc786981b5f35cbe6ebb06f9446d113cd53d2d6f
6659 F20101109_AABZNH manthorne_a_Page_10thm.jpg
688a602560c6cdc37169f80f92ace31e
1e17a8e1d8c14e4375c59ddbf346149cc8c99508
48414 F20101109_AABZIL manthorne_a_Page_19.pro
8bce1c16813ead0c999c11d82b995e49
7e03dd994a906fa834d2ccb0c8632487b683a75e
77878 F20101109_AABZDO manthorne_a_Page_30.jpg
e2cfd0cdb22f50783fbe75af3c20ada5
14f3414ce2d6b4714dfaba281f13ccf8155a0cb6
6809 F20101109_AABZNI manthorne_a_Page_12thm.jpg
f3be93e2c49d6476a204b1d9d21e974d
7383b166a7e008b91acf576693c223e573f185e3
48614 F20101109_AABZIM manthorne_a_Page_21.pro
2aab7f7ba5ba3379033fea04178983c3
f26caddb28950a10328af40ffecf0d601ca21182
75851 F20101109_AABZDP manthorne_a_Page_31.jpg
b848554eb1177fd3f62f42112c0f6628
d8457186e2d07c187b42c225635e1fc2d8f6d96e
25817 F20101109_AABZNJ manthorne_a_Page_13.QC.jpg
5e52ccbe6f8dca6f37d77e14ac6c04b4
4cdf8df5965a57619732219822a253f16d14cb73
44018 F20101109_AABZIN manthorne_a_Page_22.pro
d83f82a0f8725782fe5cb344f215d1c4
e98a7bd583db09a9e4b632117c2105f01f5bed4a
79780 F20101109_AABZDQ manthorne_a_Page_32.jpg
295fdd0c85cb7d57d6b3ead5f5844a04
b45ccb82c2eb62506ce8b4bf08fa365ea8e6180d
6928 F20101109_AABZNK manthorne_a_Page_13thm.jpg
283918c08974369f7d63661497768d27
a9e933c233a495a93f67438cdd44286c5f7743d5
55536 F20101109_AABZIO manthorne_a_Page_23.pro
0e671dbc7b8e75127659529745c5fd23
83cd1823cc67ea6e760bf149d993aedc0ab6165d
79050 F20101109_AABZDR manthorne_a_Page_33.jpg
09a8bf9e2f0f45d3d384b01475fd5e64
7bdd42a15f0d4a03bf02966eeb517309aa9b6fe5
8109 F20101109_AABZNL manthorne_a_Page_14.QC.jpg
0942dfe9fcdef6050b3cab29aea08fff
ae5ee5df5fc0c7212006289e1fd6833424afa797
50700 F20101109_AABZIP manthorne_a_Page_24.pro
3559fa069b4ffd80fea4dfc520edd7d2
1096475e64707abb79294f4f8c0b5865f1af9201
81733 F20101109_AABZDS manthorne_a_Page_34.jpg
5d3b167ff44ac78e758cf9a0b06d64b0
79d952acc39f50b8064e022a85b76f6af658c5cd
2575 F20101109_AABZNM manthorne_a_Page_14thm.jpg
a351426b6a47fd2a5dd1943939049dad
a847ee18c31b4f7f3500db9164045bd06a1fb4ff
43683 F20101109_AABZIQ manthorne_a_Page_26.pro
ce029ea085ae5415330ec86d4b800749
7b3879139b32412ff07a1678a4fda05d296b10c3
80496 F20101109_AABZDT manthorne_a_Page_35.jpg
1dfbc02ccc9cad94da220c0b96ebbdbf
487c4fc6109a961f6fda61c58d0b67b0730a8749
22519 F20101109_AABZNN manthorne_a_Page_15.QC.jpg
4f223e97d8ab4f36c0ee8d591f8601aa
dd9a2b703708de0ec839f91d941ec72eeeed70fd
51575 F20101109_AABZIR manthorne_a_Page_27.pro
392b4c2f7e4c1510993774f329eabb94
c91184e5dfedeeac37d1384a188fdd1e6664a7bd
38185 F20101109_AABZDU manthorne_a_Page_37.jpg
49d2df8e87a88ec6df45b8963da57cd2
a36627b0b8936c457317739db8e785cbd86e1374
6212 F20101109_AABZNO manthorne_a_Page_15thm.jpg
8ff987c12819b6aaf34ec49cb645827d
b2606f25570d83edd1c4a21a64fec2a6076b3546
48490 F20101109_AABZIS manthorne_a_Page_29.pro
8e96c9cb940a3a70c5cf445dafbd5aad
3088edc3f1177738ce960a75287da63c9ca84bd0
38284 F20101109_AABZDV manthorne_a_Page_38.jpg
0b5617b3b79efea87b79b7d6e82fbf65
9f17043c8c9782e55816eb0b7af701406752e5b8
7146 F20101109_AABZNP manthorne_a_Page_17thm.jpg
5814a5be7f581dc620e1ee07e6643878
1b9ed36cd2c1099d692e97e8f3f3941f48435023
49317 F20101109_AABZIT manthorne_a_Page_30.pro
1a7b96cfbd8f16eb478efdc545f71528
7ba2ec16b7c09f44765a57df138fa1dcc6c1b0f6
69981 F20101109_AABZDW manthorne_a_Page_39.jpg
3eb4a1df6c062e752877f90d781d5530
35e9d08c64951c18d50736b4af5bbc08b3b73712
7157 F20101109_AABZNQ manthorne_a_Page_18thm.jpg
0533dcdd9605ecf98b18526711cda718
04efaab2a2a487f99442d1f38eb1e106852ec705
46929 F20101109_AABZIU manthorne_a_Page_31.pro
d8af134a6dd3bbe61ff008fdc82a17ce
b1bf55fe0c268e289e4430c20a8d81bd1bc2a28b
97757 F20101109_AABZDX manthorne_a_Page_41.jpg
cf0a512ce79c400e36f10e862740df90
ca21f4a11e63636eaab14b0b5e61e40c006922ea
26386 F20101109_AABZNR manthorne_a_Page_20.QC.jpg
a11901127ee8e9ac348369e661935f9b
28b0341b716e34ddd9f4bea1211650f314c15b9f
51766 F20101109_AABZIV manthorne_a_Page_32.pro
70a39d066f932bceeb7d9e58179c1f33
464329846150880ed2e0f35b7c943ace2c956bc1
7278 F20101109_AABZNS manthorne_a_Page_20thm.jpg
78ab745f188942c7f16374710de952eb
e090ede079a91259ff5291d97b9fe34278f1c463
50003 F20101109_AABZIW manthorne_a_Page_33.pro
cbe5eefbf9b7d0216165d01057cb9ef3
2742a23d998c5b84d3df64d1c20dcbd70cbf26ed
209524 F20101109_AABYZA manthorne_a_Page_11.jp2
2f86f866a094705fd24d94736289ce68
9924d6ba53c33c58e027e191e45ca4ded14a59bf
F20101109_AABZBA manthorne_a_Page_26.tif
35c6ec9387cc66af2e40af175e3f48d6
1798994b1dc04a5e39a5796ce69a6bb70dde1c8d
67812 F20101109_AABZDY manthorne_a_Page_42.jpg
d10fa100445c2cef5d76e19ac882c71c
2c9dff38b48474afb7bcf102ca54828e238068cb
6312 F20101109_AABZNT manthorne_a_Page_22thm.jpg
18bc5152cdd23af04e053e309596cf72
154583d5cf811eb2fb600c1b0c6112651e5be006
50457 F20101109_AABZIX manthorne_a_Page_34.pro
d63e951b7eb8d3c3854f6ac7e96c6ea3
a6556a8a16b19f4924131ac2260d5497744ab06c
F20101109_AABYZB manthorne_a_Page_15.tif
c28cf14f3a3240f2db617e78913af772
77549ae0076965e82e14e1f5e424d52f1c8d10dc
1051951 F20101109_AABZBB manthorne_a_Page_24.jp2
5778caa676d4f847c818bb1c0e7cff9a
a5764108b513f6bf882eaa41ec5186ccfe5824cf
64736 F20101109_AABZDZ manthorne_a_Page_43.jpg
25ba3212a4f4df6c482741f8089b9a01
a84f23651572990c24c96e42cd1dc9c562d547a2
28097 F20101109_AABZNU manthorne_a_Page_23.QC.jpg
2eb479079600e2dd4b71b7db69c3b239
ce44df64a872a29fd453750e92bd21a9b787b19e
50966 F20101109_AABZIY manthorne_a_Page_35.pro
c4f139c95f843a9cbff4082ebf61af62
dcf09baf3e9288c9395c85172c41d2add8dbfac7
25288 F20101109_AABYZC manthorne_a_Page_24.QC.jpg
6ef6fa71720ec1ba2cf45cc94fe5179d
342a3d16446101e50d72f3a9edde9a43903666d9
F20101109_AABZBC manthorne_a_Page_41.jp2
a9f7ef778734655a7667a00853d2166d
cb67ab4ae17218fe96138c5ab4946a646da8d524
2728 F20101109_AABZNV manthorne_a_Page_25thm.jpg
c65a4251ffacc53aa3e7399ef44e1d66
9b0cb3ee0e950ede3e59a300854b2e05988b35c3
12995 F20101109_AABZIZ manthorne_a_Page_36.pro
90e3189eb482ef3b74875a74754a3474
c7b59c812cb14d595287ced951d0f504b7ba8986
78357 F20101109_AABYZD manthorne_a_Page_29.jpg
099d044a3e2f6e85b54fdff2163491d0
9ec23bbdcd6fe8e9ab5566bea3f930fee547e0b4
1984 F20101109_AABZBD manthorne_a_Page_33.txt
6eefa298ea610a404902c1d0597ad0fb
8fe3b3525a9f4346da79207d8369772a86cb293c
26618 F20101109_AABZNW manthorne_a_Page_27.QC.jpg
4835110940326ebb9a9e1dc73f05f9d8
819d871e058ebce77b4bd72007cac6af0116979d
729688 F20101109_AABZGA manthorne_a_Page_59.jp2
867611870032a737fa4f30cbb9073168
ab2d45f7f3254f1a63f4dc8e5ba3a8e42029f259
76943 F20101109_AABYZE manthorne_a_Page_12.jpg
23a9670bbaed63bee02fe2725687c567
41fb9bbcd46af29acd48733a4db24b34f20df0e7
1051911 F20101109_AABZBE manthorne_a_Page_18.jp2
7a88d3ac9d0486e1e409c5a42c17faac
03e2a7f8caa9395a2a15c3e145b2fff12c9529d6
7028 F20101109_AABZNX manthorne_a_Page_27thm.jpg
7ea0fc164cc2f8deff7d537c3b99a2b6
7a85f08e1509186c50b6935094a6fcb5656328b1
752418 F20101109_AABZGB manthorne_a_Page_61.jp2
bd28427b59cc49215883285cf5b4d6af
6d4612f7fd17fbba55039de7b51db6e5001c871d
3215 F20101109_AABYZF manthorne_a_Page_03.pro
9071affbf54d7e2144067059bf9b4ee8
d1a874189907a7a2cdb3f3ee7f0fe50a59410910
F20101109_AABZBF manthorne_a_Page_43.tif
5e8f1fd3630aa0b7be60cfc792e02057
8017eadf0815cc293fb06744886da2b6052d81df
6947 F20101109_AABZNY manthorne_a_Page_28thm.jpg
e86dcb7f98ac6ede81763e369a41b334
e074ca99d8dae585cd13f584bf01ccb4a049ebbe
502647 F20101109_AABZGC manthorne_a_Page_62.jp2
042a15cf93914409b1670068e3c7a45f
8514139073b29c61b8e191b1740c1909ade57bcf
70573 F20101109_AABYZG manthorne_a_Page_57.jpg
53eb99d073d44cd6ed1f8df5ec7883e0
c835ce3525af1ba037e784a85e0675c5029091a3
6936 F20101109_AABZBG manthorne_a_Page_19thm.jpg
7d230fc23687a1ae231c540bd533a4e6
622c0e34ad0e1d31d82bbf95fde3006bc402c640
2662 F20101109_AABZLA manthorne_a_Page_41.txt
de08cd336bdec2060678b8d9aa80dac9
696077c210e685505ce904c95cf18b51f968d251
6851 F20101109_AABZNZ manthorne_a_Page_29thm.jpg
f05f039d0f0cd0a17e8c2e9db2bfa848
1c6f101aee2334447dd60deba93d539c6138a11e
F20101109_AABZGD manthorne_a_Page_01.tif
04e7aff6fa784af97b2a8a900efca097
c2dd03f511269270b91b8420b9703885aa7038fe
77198 F20101109_AABYZH manthorne_a_Page_03.jp2
95946ce56671d7b80b25f3351b5f74b1
0609e13b7200bf4d24386183002e65c4623b50c6
5931 F20101109_AABZBH manthorne_a_Page_46thm.jpg
db800971e69cfd0b8dedf949bb253b92
40579b0dfe3671be86bbecde310d0dcba2721c23
1390 F20101109_AABZLB manthorne_a_Page_42.txt
6ef9c755d7d9dde42650067efe19d416
d0b1e938b5f7a1cd22a6ab71998919f206e276b5
F20101109_AABZGE manthorne_a_Page_02.tif
c2c0327a24aa7cfe84cfcbd97c0a1834
7c0f9791956c2e85540219d8a8b8f6e75bef21b9
25883 F20101109_AABZBI manthorne_a_Page_28.QC.jpg
fb92d5f80d567a9da61bdcb992a9a46a
c1ec2d5f8ab2652048925f4943a58993a7b44d27
1620 F20101109_AABZLC manthorne_a_Page_43.txt
6b61e8a9b49170ee357300fb9fed1351
bc6e178d8742d89c6de05b239ffdec4fa6c5badf
F20101109_AABZGF manthorne_a_Page_03.tif
74bba611699dd8820882acb8caf9bf97
90ef3f6c1dbf205e2098bc81ce0e4637ecb92d5f
23885 F20101109_AABYZI manthorne_a_Page_12.QC.jpg
0a39217e7a1abc164fd569189ebd07e4
11c8c0610f0665723d08d99e0c2c844fe9cb01c0
24452 F20101109_AABZBJ manthorne_a_Page_54.QC.jpg
a402723f8e2cb2e6b13a695df4264a02
98b705512543ff3459811dc2eed87f4b74539789
2419 F20101109_AABZLD manthorne_a_Page_44.txt
4716c09dbf6488854bbed6d2bae694e1
3e7302e56084448f858acbbfa2d9e78d372ddcc9
F20101109_AABZGG manthorne_a_Page_04.tif
e4ae3815ab76ebd390ede3cff45173d9
0856fc715b9254e638b740b38481d4702c00cc6b
86548 F20101109_AABYZJ manthorne_a_Page_45.jpg
d2812cf2d908b7ee277bc963c49db4fb
e5fb54d4759a27e510f54b7f5fa9bfa0090f4745
6990 F20101109_AABZBK manthorne_a_Page_21thm.jpg
2323a669e90a2ae8595e6675e4492ec7
3d92ba461cdb6379f76aff431e3dfae1eb067d5d
1589 F20101109_AABZLE manthorne_a_Page_46.txt
b3afe535b822b238c5244bcde0f5310c
596eba41bea4086aec5cc87742fa8bb1b417c8bc
F20101109_AABZGH manthorne_a_Page_05.tif
7b90a3babc72827d1d38c3be3f3cb949
8fd48f53ad028463200689070931e8368ada5d27
522 F20101109_AABYZK manthorne_a_Page_37.txt
411e55f4b1d1e1e3f2948baf881a6bb6
770341843d633701adfff62949304b676e5d625d
25253 F20101109_AABZBL manthorne_a_Page_14.jpg
ef457cda2d2c33620a8f29c865dc6d52
400118a397c47c77fa82ff738974a7b2cafeacba
1402 F20101109_AABZLF manthorne_a_Page_47.txt
633fbb23129789d06aa0dbf3b0333f55
ae4730ecf71011b975357f760b87b14baf5e6ee6
F20101109_AABZGI manthorne_a_Page_06.tif
9c58ace4c10bb86e7e78c7875a01b3d9
644ef66c6bc828a861aee870ad65b3b7ab990bb4
64829 F20101109_AABYZL manthorne_a_Page_60.pro
9ba05ca3657c0473a0844d45aa6e9dcc
9dc8dca2253e957c88dc850871e899873b50df13
4398 F20101109_AABZBM manthorne_a_Page_37thm.jpg
2d5c10a3caf699ed9a803072ef29e61b
c40159f358d658ee88972993737d5b9a7ec8e1b1
1117 F20101109_AABZLG manthorne_a_Page_48.txt
73f7bc3b3cf3a502bd36c4d3cd970003
20d70b46ea58494994d4e1b8f179062c6fa5b5ab
F20101109_AABZGJ manthorne_a_Page_07.tif
e13d1f0aa3f8cfe030e9a20314b12726
23e8d9183f504fb4177e7091fbfc78eed9443c0b
751130 F20101109_AABYZM manthorne_a_Page_47.jp2
114f75756b7c2048e5daf460af393b9a
fc1366d94722faec435ed4dfae4c21f5b6cdf552
18408 F20101109_AABZBN manthorne_a_Page_06.QC.jpg
f513f52c9755b1950b110008e8f4ddcc
c154d8bb91af112173e865d5351cdb8f0b91598e
1416 F20101109_AABZLH manthorne_a_Page_49.txt
77e5b829f40eab3caec1acbaaee90a76
4ecce585e85dc6e5c09dfed5fc083b54f8fff2f5
F20101109_AABZGK manthorne_a_Page_08.tif
e9169efdf6957de5f22636460492b119
ef7c4865825e5b747ae6d121e06155d0aabf1b14
F20101109_AABYZN manthorne_a_Page_34.tif
f330aa43b04733aa9fb4224a7f41f191
c42e6922ff32e5cb290778c5627bb75472971bbc
4102 F20101109_AABZBO manthorne_a_Page_06.txt
46459141ba0682eb681d8b439bd5de3e
bb4fbe27f30ef7d35380907cbd0ef9ce324b43d1
2330 F20101109_AABZLI manthorne_a_Page_50.txt
ba2188bd5134d7e2e0b25f46b0331718
d93e59b8693392a54225de45d1b46083808f67aa
F20101109_AABZGL manthorne_a_Page_09.tif
391d7e28ac0ad26d317e57d6d0db6664
01b339999771c30d555dd0ffa62811c65fe56058
90258 F20101109_AABYZO manthorne_a_Page_44.jpg
980e80a7e189ff81fc1ba53b29a260ab
85137bc92aec10f372e06cb80640604129b2b048
2962 F20101109_AABZLJ manthorne_a_Page_51.txt
9e8653b21298a7dcc415f442efdf816e
57f1c60d4b5a743c490e49f381a53431c9ce8e47
F20101109_AABZGM manthorne_a_Page_10.tif
0509f0ddb95be0e8a40477b4ebf824c6
d0610c52c7660bfa2560a6cab7eb574916c875a3
1331 F20101109_AABZBP manthorne_a_Page_55.txt
ba907b39f9605a261c97642a4f4e5a89
c88f752f9616748dae2f09ee1a1de7b672de9a7f
2276 F20101109_AABZLK manthorne_a_Page_52.txt
a9f6286bb8f8a110c485ca0edc0bcc8b
090e7339914e7a6c2920e0ec9c7d8493e593cffa
F20101109_AABZGN manthorne_a_Page_11.tif
a037ba3e5ddad04951a4431f0324266d
951c6b9ac16a5c12934acd3fe0299fcd9a3b6d88
2653 F20101109_AABYZP manthorne_a_Page_60.txt
3f61f833360095f9efd681710ba0e3c9
13760f69226ab0567d735dc2dcfa49a18bfd7cd2
23766 F20101109_AABZBQ manthorne_a_Page_19.QC.jpg
948564d68d0a952064bc34a5af79c0e1
dfa16f9de5270a5a7f4bea9784075436c0863ccb
2119 F20101109_AABZLL manthorne_a_Page_54.txt
d9ad9fdab9d10676cf748c56e48bef1b
50c9f4a3526ca9b7f1536e74b41ab3798bc24a8c
F20101109_AABZGO manthorne_a_Page_12.tif
4d35511a655ecdda206a7314a035b208
fff2fb27b13c91377b6a4b70a7d932e4ff28ab57
F20101109_AABYZQ manthorne_a_Page_19.jp2
c201293ce43957c59b51e692316832d0
7aa04414a3ffa65d5dfc7d80583b941ee135a8ff
993502 F20101109_AABZBR manthorne_a_Page_26.jp2
6e77ff7c03406ff12478aa729604f7e8
2ce575411e25e31823d361088a2fa05cce206ac4
1725 F20101109_AABZLM manthorne_a_Page_56.txt
799b3f88016845cd0c22173bbc875107
672cc5d9f28befcdaf3cb98d89c7c34272af3eb1
F20101109_AABZGP manthorne_a_Page_14.tif
5227ac0bac9dd4d4bb43b7136072acb4
1d120d59f34b1c092cfdb3b4c02acdd9da320b0f
2113 F20101109_AABYZR manthorne_a_Page_08thm.jpg
69b7592fdc07ae558df62666123ad39a
cc57d412afe90e228b616920d01ea405188e4b7f
26373 F20101109_AABZBS manthorne_a_Page_48.pro
94df589dda857d3cfea2a62926353ee1
a9b6ca26c8fe03b4a357f12acb72f4ae39373b29
2109 F20101109_AABZLN manthorne_a_Page_57.txt
de53942b36863b16ff176dcf52c56fe2
2c6470bc36dbcdfc3455468c703ec2a5dd5aa046
F20101109_AABZGQ manthorne_a_Page_16.tif
0db7aa790e14af360598ea9784f795bc
347b4122fe5d6d7ba25292381a3b6c5740d083bd
F20101109_AABYZS manthorne_a_Page_13.tif
b18d5af7961cafdebce5245332538c73
821b1c9198f5036c8b5ea726830630050765395a
F20101109_AABZBT manthorne_a_Page_41.tif
05bb918cc6d550bdee5153f8fc95c2bb
b06e489e4adec173a794db0d610fa72d92417e25
1943 F20101109_AABZLO manthorne_a_Page_58.txt
55ef269a15309d43edfdf9e37a120741
f9fafea16483a344b396c39fc1aea23decf90abf
F20101109_AABZGR manthorne_a_Page_17.tif
ac61acce2d7aee0c1ebf413aa6d88623
d604c80775eb16d94eae547cdd2e0eae20194c6e
F20101109_AABYZT manthorne_a_Page_47.tif
68c300cb5d64d63e987b9c78feebed3a
e6c9ae647d951a5cb35410cf8bf91c8ab2160beb
1051981 F20101109_AABZBU manthorne_a_Page_35.jp2
77ef5c676da2d9750022d218a0456872
ad683d3067e2b8c4e156eef1930a1bf76393c343
1514 F20101109_AABZLP manthorne_a_Page_59.txt
df938e5ba11207b876fe15bf75df699d
ec3fe41a249d02e6a4fb6c3e84543fcfa9cd7828
F20101109_AABZGS manthorne_a_Page_18.tif
10c63e22827dd981fca354826ad31ad9
0c7307894944d80ea895d80ad2657861999d62ab
1381 F20101109_AABYZU manthorne_a_Page_02thm.jpg
f8e07dd47fbd3f64c2df70591aced7e3
6786145b9304664d954d2533a47a37bf7f317408
50394 F20101109_AABZBV manthorne_a_Page_17.pro
0204ec9082feaf374ede8a558e129612
636c0a5bb81dcc6cd15ad3a941f0313f92a4114e
326198 F20101109_AABZLQ manthorne_a.pdf
5cd09fbba7324cc6150b99033bfa9c0b
b647f11f47e93ecb5c2eaa894ab1afb7b11b860c
F20101109_AABZGT manthorne_a_Page_19.tif
7bb44755942a4beac9c7810b0ecf1ed6
d2576c0466e1641dfad268b58f69a7d07063d377
13768 F20101109_AABYZV manthorne_a_Page_04.pro
7c0e314ad57044640d29b7188f2dee93
30cb17ab99196b11a4ee916fd38cbc994e7cab0f
6714 F20101109_AABZLR manthorne_a_Page_53thm.jpg
ca02560b527d08b9e341717777e07852
8a6d917e416bd3767f5f284d8f55a4189203fffb
F20101109_AABZGU manthorne_a_Page_20.tif
ce73715e4c9b7d8d6c85ed4f202cb6bc
5fd363b24b370da4feb6ff58d77e58ef9eeff15a
2200 F20101109_AABYZW manthorne_a_Page_13.txt
7f46384c252f75a5669cb8184c4a6d15
e50ff4e7d3bd07d1444de11c0b283b43c5ec651a
24890 F20101109_AABZBW manthorne_a_Page_31.QC.jpg
a1b3110f46f3a4e22cb6044fd6ecfc54
eccb752412c4d00d94c71f06ccaad8ec6274728f
24957 F20101109_AABZLS manthorne_a_Page_45.QC.jpg
7f478deffd5eb4b4234a0ac27fb3d3d7
93028b2d318b00b9acff5b37993c5502a72de706
F20101109_AABZGV manthorne_a_Page_21.tif
d4f21518b31725c4ca5bc4d203f1229c
b7662fcede7e61a720865fede42954d444a07c63
7043 F20101109_AABYZX manthorne_a_Page_24thm.jpg
8f7640bf9f1e7a2d6a7861383fa8672b
7dc2a943d20abf4fee6bd97ae16d7593dc1359a3
25813 F20101109_AABZBX manthorne_a_Page_29.QC.jpg
1a186505c4fbf0b0eb0ce723b8c80ad8
d4d0129fe7e1f811d0dc9c5815d0403c3ff847a2
20799 F20101109_AABZLT manthorne_a_Page_42.QC.jpg
540b18b0a6108aeeb76b79677f7a8a76
8e3cd50ac39e8862c720560cc08c4ed5c0cdb5ea
F20101109_AABZGW manthorne_a_Page_22.tif
ab6243e8cfd9c6de3f31aa72897c449d
16b05d3b8f18ffb26a9bd3dbd907298236540f9c
13519 F20101109_AABYZY manthorne_a_Page_25.pro
230341b51c39b42be3e404161d01835f
24bc85df4a3b5006d6e2e426a297d5bc9e145e9b
365 F20101109_AABZBY manthorne_a_Page_11.txt
c2f7cd7efb23e67c3a026e7c2f73e273
102f43d81233ad7fc2e28db45d173898445a6f12
14333 F20101109_AABZLU manthorne_a_Page_61.QC.jpg
d9ef7aed31ea2f467b3ddaa7451d717d
bc184c5fcbd8ab5af4111265a268387bcfd6c27c
F20101109_AABZGX manthorne_a_Page_24.tif
ffb8999442bb85f48242d276fedda8b0
20cdc0ffbdc50e7b90ef0bbdc64bae228b503efc
7876 F20101109_AABYZZ manthorne_a_Page_01.QC.jpg
eeca10e9fc5a512de58000e56ffa8c5a
8bf0416f4ee06e41c60d192eb88d613add9d4b04
99500 F20101109_AABZBZ manthorne_a_Page_60.jpg
a0cbe06561eaf80016cf846c1cbb0fa5
19dd9de647696b9caa2484828bce17a9b917b1ca
7212 F20101109_AABZLV manthorne_a_Page_33thm.jpg
a8af5ad5437862178c3444e618a00c35
f2a780ffaf492d0524972f3daf8f201d7bd20190
F20101109_AABZGY manthorne_a_Page_25.tif
e25b6fcd5ae114d88bd42e88b6bef6a2
ae1bd30d23a62978c2aaa128ddc6d501bb9acbb1
3157 F20101109_AABZLW manthorne_a_Page_02.QC.jpg
cd917c2c4c3189f5cc67cd69661ff5e7
459c21bcc89d06fda4bd60ebc8c61f0dd4fec540
55525 F20101109_AABZEA manthorne_a_Page_47.jpg
c8a955f349405d9ee453d82ac0b7df63
61355577d0f31a58f07732cd6bf1c6fb7b7e591f
F20101109_AABZGZ manthorne_a_Page_27.tif
0a3ea4e238c4d667fab198bf7624495e
fef4da885da1257b8546e6e2acf36d72a798833c
7484 F20101109_AABZLX manthorne_a_Page_60thm.jpg
febdc39f0a8356c2c5f437883e8166a1
fe2d91f8617032ece041b9650e05719d39dd0ff4
49698 F20101109_AABZEB manthorne_a_Page_48.jpg
7f6b440a28b9725bffaa8c21ded1a668
b36392ffcd77f056ca31bfe8fcf1f0e225ef3a64
96729 F20101109_AABZEC manthorne_a_Page_50.jpg
e3b5b34b097c873f61fbce7db30d1536
4e046c63cfb887368d632860f02676418789f271
5595 F20101109_AABZLY manthorne_a_Page_58thm.jpg
44831ea55cc099ab640ba9310b19cec0
7c1014cb1a4db98011bfcaf73ffc3749d2bdb715
102818 F20101109_AABZED manthorne_a_Page_51.jpg
21ebce4dcf1551169df87914c54b1494
0b7b8c63fc55f1573387b363f0ad3c870802e827
8753 F20101109_AABZJA manthorne_a_Page_37.pro
0ca2ebde1c8f9644656c744da178a87f
953a2072a47f052a0e2275678444fac50c5370ae
25471 F20101109_AABZLZ manthorne_a_Page_17.QC.jpg
a191451258a2d6c2720b10953675ae9d
b0974a3858b3af6eae82637f5a86fafb087650c3
94622 F20101109_AABZEE manthorne_a_Page_52.jpg
1a484b3a8abe190bbc8024b023d8f319
50271efffcbdede79c5c0e764e6c009f163ffc97
39635 F20101109_AABZJB manthorne_a_Page_39.pro
6af80f0bc9795e590bf08dd3728e9489
5410a2062ba783e7700483741f4a4a7d2a52dd2d
97522 F20101109_AABZEF manthorne_a_Page_53.jpg
b87077b71b100a72819d94f9b1fba818
c584fb783d5b8959242301154544c1dda0e2957f
24671 F20101109_AABZOA manthorne_a_Page_30.QC.jpg
78f24aa752ae7992bd605880fc9c30c8
7dbcc5ad653cbf05018d1007f49a168a73968760
10841 F20101109_AABZJC manthorne_a_Page_40.pro
ca4c6c60ebfd1bcf8e538e4df9641603
2608fd2e3dd6c0b44a9d00abecbc15f5f2e5fe57
88387 F20101109_AABZEG manthorne_a_Page_54.jpg
56505a10a1ce88a9ace0c1ad4245d57d
9fcd2becd2fcfca9f72fe6adbd924974544b8d32
6753 F20101109_AABZOB manthorne_a_Page_30thm.jpg
a9cef82d0a7508e1f60f3616e7c9ce46
87e985823d55dab219d4dd1b191d0d5da6f41b07
63077 F20101109_AABZJD manthorne_a_Page_41.pro
118f8a43eefa67cf196f344217acd793
c54f5cb4621ed8db2886ebe157dc9c5c9948eb2c
70298 F20101109_AABZEH manthorne_a_Page_58.jpg
0694c7e26b4ec2e823aa456945cf5506
ed897559f5f8f7057314e98d102819e30992e294
6676 F20101109_AABZOC manthorne_a_Page_31thm.jpg
c3e334282be58e0e266f5f90981e0043
290117f376a6fb5c5293caa4774a5efb6728ab8a
36303 F20101109_AABZJE manthorne_a_Page_43.pro
ca096ed61f104ff831971c4213203ffd
2df99d6eecc62be682a6c4a6d6fa249ed88a012f
55999 F20101109_AABZEI manthorne_a_Page_59.jpg
dc63a1e5d8438db5b9bf7d18e664ab2b
c09abd362f79a20776adab23a6628284b66b1069
57194 F20101109_AABZJF manthorne_a_Page_44.pro
893c42881f0bbd80d430ec4ae5f8042f
0a3a5b86c8cb9b71f573e4f82b721dadbad022eb
25339 F20101109_AABZOD manthorne_a_Page_32.QC.jpg
bdde8892d2ceaa70617cd1cb23dd56df
3d4ca6f91b98af0b1fc136be9c6fdf3043e06841
53884 F20101109_AABZEJ manthorne_a_Page_61.jpg
05a8f5b211e1c7016cadfc1e9d1405ff
1bb3657f85b5e120fb6c45d210ee918b52daebf8
56456 F20101109_AABZJG manthorne_a_Page_45.pro
5e9bab76ecf708bbb33c64eb419b44a8
feb71e9885ca314b6e2fd395181979598258f307
7224 F20101109_AABZOE manthorne_a_Page_32thm.jpg
5348456d1c1922a2079949ccf1bb2eef
4546456b36e1d7b4f7affcf2f5a803f204216fc2
40597 F20101109_AABZEK manthorne_a_Page_62.jpg
aca1ad2b65d67a6bf3ee4bb69528939b
9ce297dab99d3b595d2441ff8e4611cb4aaaf294
38424 F20101109_AABZJH manthorne_a_Page_46.pro
7d55a261e50ce91f8e775c72b6ac3877
04fd8ca2c86fa1e94e6bfce662794e3cb0673925
25397 F20101109_AABZOF manthorne_a_Page_34.QC.jpg
0f8d2d090d76431bde8b32014cf3bd00
2ad933294021667cfa9cd5af0630658ee5fac76a
33768 F20101109_AABZJI manthorne_a_Page_47.pro
d90770d13581a8df4f80a4fd7f4deee5
c19d7450fd511217bd319703dd80435b69527e17
268238 F20101109_AABZEL manthorne_a_Page_01.jp2
3e462b6160cfb6a88cd388665a9c5437
44e41deafb04e7ae20c588cd0ab0840871cb504f
25876 F20101109_AABZOG manthorne_a_Page_35.QC.jpg
bb17d83fca4f3a2a015c62a9c83692a2
6e5c674b84f7576c1217dabf21cb7c80dcf1857a
29400 F20101109_AABZJJ manthorne_a_Page_49.pro
0bcc1aa8423ffa427adbcc58157b71d2
e29604592a21a13eb504c3aa6a3fb126a35e49ca
29641 F20101109_AABZEM manthorne_a_Page_02.jp2
6e9690a24cafb2fdda204eba81a57940
edc5cf280b93193f57609fd98717fbea8e76c73e
7286 F20101109_AABZOH manthorne_a_Page_35thm.jpg
d5f9f473ac3d7a577e16f4bc6e5ff9da
c4af36a3b1f698f28b5ffbf8597469a44feb4a07
51899 F20101109_AABZJK manthorne_a_Page_50.pro
9f509866786ecaba5a75bc15e95dd20e
45f5177adfce73e810af861b295cf06da58405bd
1051974 F20101109_AABZEN manthorne_a_Page_05.jp2
c7ddc5e7a5c5b9710aef98592b265594
581c0955a69119b0a596047c3a5c3777c2147fb9
12514 F20101109_AABZOI manthorne_a_Page_37.QC.jpg
1f344b3fb7a9917447b994f31a014a31
69acae35bad32832c2d72444029330546688f45c
65172 F20101109_AABZJL manthorne_a_Page_51.pro
b0336d84a07466ec1add83635f0277fb
523ab9244289c060518adbb977ef7c7861a80016
1051960 F20101109_AABZEO manthorne_a_Page_06.jp2
3dc8f5052a32befb8ed82dc18a6f1eae
f91e97ee9ebddb03baa8220bac5b6c3dbd6b4509
13530 F20101109_AABZOJ manthorne_a_Page_38.QC.jpg
bf47f3aef891066bdeb0c79766b5ef93
011cae83f93705660d7310b9784d70ffca35056c
56326 F20101109_AABZJM manthorne_a_Page_52.pro
0a013c315e7db202b4ea81a0ef21ea59
1e155628662dba9477abea8ab18ea398bd4aa6b9
F20101109_AABZEP manthorne_a_Page_07.jp2
51254fc94e5035263e07ba2283b2c4fa
74ffc32f614dfd63b22ed82302d8bc0191d22a06
4444 F20101109_AABZOK manthorne_a_Page_38thm.jpg
8efdd2e0caab2b8eef75d07f2647cc2a
3e48025933bc03d3ec8a1e361715db59b8243a70
56949 F20101109_AABZJN manthorne_a_Page_53.pro
c76076b930b6b0e821eabbc2f87a4c88
5831ae9c694b49d25976e54ff54d5b5813be72d9
358083 F20101109_AABZEQ manthorne_a_Page_08.jp2
94e4429fbfa29db32903ce55d6b3391e
7bc62e0f8196cbd7f344474ea0eabb3df62fdc83
20547 F20101109_AABZOL manthorne_a_Page_39.QC.jpg
8dde1b4cc39545dc3895109d506e9429
0be51416e2cd0b58189d8ddf7c20f92608b0db9e
51877 F20101109_AABZJO manthorne_a_Page_54.pro
f8cf9cec62e83fe8ec3d37cb5400945d
cd97c44d2bc345443fac12437f4df6adf07400cb
210766 F20101109_AABZER manthorne_a_Page_09.jp2
3c5c4d28db9c12054f518dbab513e325
8ae9ad61ba10bdb80d34b89af0ad535197d5405b
5628 F20101109_AABZOM manthorne_a_Page_39thm.jpg
76a127b07a6119e531c6c9536afefde8
3c08c4146a93c3d07e32d4c209c2459651c55813
32367 F20101109_AABZJP manthorne_a_Page_55.pro
544f79f3bd453f928de9128d1bc62716
36bfc85eba6b37c40d0646475bad763f02396b5f
F20101109_AABZES manthorne_a_Page_10.jp2
5580e07c53df442251c6b2dbdbcf1b60
c4f7580f9b5449f2bff793ee0223ee62671777f6
12454 F20101109_AABZON manthorne_a_Page_40.QC.jpg
7cc670e006d55a95503a8c85fa4d6259
b9aff97684c56253d592f249bf700b477ab34899
40952 F20101109_AABZJQ manthorne_a_Page_56.pro
a67311dc4161f7210c2af672d055e39d
09e5858620fdc6de5ece3d2116f3feff957a05c8
1051955 F20101109_AABZET manthorne_a_Page_12.jp2
e3410a7ada9e4730ba7cc32b94142b8d
bb2a67d5620dd42a479215c5b13d6998ff658a33
27125 F20101109_AABZOO manthorne_a_Page_41.QC.jpg
63bbb0142b33ed53fb3690f95f157764
5cbbb1709047724f0a2addd0d1fd56069dfea7fc
49413 F20101109_AABZJR manthorne_a_Page_57.pro
c48d18dc2f5c6f747351a2e8d2abea84
7f8580c33685154bcccde285a5d6744f64827a15
F20101109_AABZEU manthorne_a_Page_13.jp2
bd1900fffe8da4cf4f03733302fa4117
2891612b7bc24b50ac1b3b34f58bab52705a22c8
6926 F20101109_AABZOP manthorne_a_Page_41thm.jpg
37bcfdfb637b84d226f0b727627e4396
8c92db6eb16f48cbf25e5f6cd92a7912880a175e
45719 F20101109_AABZJS manthorne_a_Page_58.pro
9d5830fa37355cc3bc4929dd16d69e46
497b99f06b43e429d25bf03c82c32d87530d8bdd
277573 F20101109_AABZEV manthorne_a_Page_14.jp2
dfe8afb291b0405a85148394ca758301
2425ff520b0da41287de32e800dde6d81ef42083
5363 F20101109_AABZOQ manthorne_a_Page_43thm.jpg
8545771cc9e6746c301bfa59c359fe5d
ac504d3a841c1532c86e18643f31b1c63cfa1baf
35026 F20101109_AABZJT manthorne_a_Page_59.pro
321f6d4352f0ed74843b191a0228868a
054657ef375d7092af231c69281a7c8eb4bd3459
990723 F20101109_AABZEW manthorne_a_Page_15.jp2
a4a5f924db17e76497096df716e7b78a
487ffe1522b399f61d18c7d8cff0b1fa4e29930b
7357 F20101109_AABZOR manthorne_a_Page_44thm.jpg
35f47b979f04e9b4342c40f0edf41e69
ba802ceec320819bb7fd65dbb2522344578ccd30
489 F20101109_AABZJU manthorne_a_Page_01.txt
de6444c55d027346188022af04deb874
d1a6a6319c6fe8bacf5a82ccf4f1ffc23975a27b
1051978 F20101109_AABZEX manthorne_a_Page_16.jp2
d0da9e524a8bf23415c16f9d8a1052c4
4b35548ec7d56bca0344438259870038fd196466
F20101109_AABZOS manthorne_a_Page_45thm.jpg
8b12931b90dbd7c438f0b66f8d613ae9
3dfb07d104fccacc353c488fa078cce7e0c1a70b
97 F20101109_AABZJV manthorne_a_Page_02.txt
68250eddb41b2e39ae3f9731bf7fb039
6c39e4fb3cee016c0aec45fa64b1ef2990b7840c
1051969 F20101109_AABZEY manthorne_a_Page_20.jp2
2d18fa012fa535581d66b64788d98fb7
2184fd6d6857b2caef7627727207400f2f943498
20773 F20101109_AABZOT manthorne_a_Page_46.QC.jpg
1a518d67b0dc95d76b296677ad241cb6
7ef450e6470cc20bb131f0aa8e7d1ab57a9886c2
206 F20101109_AABZJW manthorne_a_Page_03.txt
116f8e9270d09a3398bfe58823acefc7
4af3e3769c2efb80a826fa9a236d58d190b5ac28
25978 F20101109_AABZCA manthorne_a_Page_52.QC.jpg
483c9f362d539f83b857fc2c816d434a
920e0a8df553e529bfb455d09997e7731fb1a7c0
17406 F20101109_AABZOU manthorne_a_Page_47.QC.jpg
f186be70efe06bf6e41f85b56b52c0b8
4bfed61c058436ba22919b4210496a7c0b9ec27d
591 F20101109_AABZJX manthorne_a_Page_04.txt
d2cd70e1168347d9d1e620064ac349d1
0e59430978c49f09307d0bbae27d849bb8c51210
1048643 F20101109_AABZCB manthorne_a_Page_31.jp2
c33228e9e90a3747b157d8d4ad31a5f9
171480c1264dcd51a093ef2ff0e8366479086e1f
1051943 F20101109_AABZEZ manthorne_a_Page_21.jp2
653117ba5ee57b2ec42e11dffd129303
1ab412930059da3f3ef30d6b11ce0c972afab087
3917 F20101109_AABZOV manthorne_a_Page_48thm.jpg
392673a9d1ef6e37393c3588aa7b9c71
db6d49525293f91a6ef655e8cad7da074a3fac50
3676 F20101109_AABZJY manthorne_a_Page_05.txt
20883136a11b626696215fd9afb96935
43e5853ec5edfaeea7b60b044a363826f58f541a
F20101109_AABZCC manthorne_a_Page_32.jp2
9c875cedd50400a10899364023d1712e
628e70ed73064738b306c3baba03cd2872016449
15080 F20101109_AABZOW manthorne_a_Page_49.QC.jpg
4ac5aacb6f4773516742e570ac9f3ae0
56f85bf7543fe371a05f5c5b7b5f5c1f96dae9ae
F20101109_AABZHA manthorne_a_Page_28.tif
c84b9badce4c4afcd27bb92bcbf8d134
2e7d80651175cbc33abb65937cfa0c1ed37e99bf
1680 F20101109_AABZJZ manthorne_a_Page_07.txt
97b95ac00a67f40bd57dfa71371fa89a
0cd58bed003073fc387c03dd3d48d31b1e3e9b32
1986 F20101109_AABZCD manthorne_a_Page_30.txt
bdf4d3aee5ddd9199080a956c3d78e9c
44630e1de9703de549bf13e197322f3323178e4b
4314 F20101109_AABZOX manthorne_a_Page_49thm.jpg
f3b71034c059c4194f602096cd69b752
e5bde6492ea8369fe2b14d7de949452efd948c50
F20101109_AABZHB manthorne_a_Page_29.tif
dab2aa1b70e3e72f07eee2af89e89093
d6a7d20be7c59a52e38f2235f7f7df8c8cfa3864
49539 F20101109_AABZCE manthorne_a_Page_28.pro
4a1756bf5791d8186a1635ab55b9782c
c28519a44e4fd48d1ad9d9a1a8de0558fc8a52ed
27392 F20101109_AABZOY manthorne_a_Page_50.QC.jpg
4b56e09a7f385c049b55927310d3b1de
48d84d183e638a433d211568e47734350ae88d0d
F20101109_AABZHC manthorne_a_Page_30.tif
7748d88f244436c3394975820036f760
1b5dc4697d965f441f612f7761f5c118f057b714
F20101109_AABZCF manthorne_a_Page_60.jp2
9253c40f4d3d37e23777e0d02a973d1b
08553bdc20e915bc10181cb358b1d0a086c355e5
22730 F20101109_AABZMA manthorne_a_Page_22.QC.jpg
1dfda779a4f50ef6c10310c2017af183
5770cf33071b82131405aebbebc084d9b380f2b0
6902 F20101109_AABZOZ manthorne_a_Page_50thm.jpg
a34838f8d5d6e43fbb4e2c134d77e4b3
b6f903080a3c502a993527a4be21ad2ce1a54d19
F20101109_AABZHD manthorne_a_Page_31.tif
196ddec72186b2ec5cbb674fe5aa4241
3168684eb48c041fa629f4b7732fc589c0226e54
F20101109_AABZCG manthorne_a_Page_42.tif
b046a4edf0a407caec9db20a1f102c3c
1fdf0818334c490e6512a834e5241faf3971d0e7
F20101109_AABZHE manthorne_a_Page_32.tif
e065514f12076e477fb40533e4e1a495
cfb8003e26a334c42dbeb7f139aa6a4d73016a10
54206 F20101109_AABZCH manthorne_a_Page_20.pro
5db9dba2a6f13ee3283e1f89bd4bebb1
b264a4507049009991fe524d70d5907e295882e5
26999 F20101109_AABZMB manthorne_a_Page_53.QC.jpg
f06e29c858ac4db9e4a0d92d5bec1820
31b2aca629df220043f566d3789455bca5861df9
F20101109_AABZHF manthorne_a_Page_33.tif
bc85d0a0b3440f29626cba257ab86d21
694421b4d3c4e17d19eb5a3fd73a079c942d17ba
25940 F20101109_AABZCI manthorne_a_Page_44.QC.jpg
78480a040187b73604a2ba836a448a32
922f7c66e841cb34d01bc31bc28de990d8be3d94
2385 F20101109_AABZMC manthorne_a_Page_11thm.jpg
c8867ee8f3fccf1768bd1ebf81ac393f
aabbc86742dd5ab3cbc06324e938b93d0d731a49
F20101109_AABZHG manthorne_a_Page_35.tif
b9fb0a15cefb8eed72fd5fd90ffe077c
055eadb9395f1f954ca990b6c939c48996ed8d12
62667 F20101109_AABZCJ manthorne_a_Page_56.jpg
53589e2b417d36d86d8e544d65ce6a07
320757443dab50d51a47359732f464c9b12ceafa
4452 F20101109_AABZMD manthorne_a_Page_36thm.jpg
a7a6fdf06cfbd2fe3216b05bc6fd4234
6dd0e0bba698d93ee65021173f88c902a9a4ef5b
57715 F20101109_AABZCK manthorne_a_Page_55.jpg
8aff651171927183a32b9a2f218b8e1e
04da40eb3135319661dc918b6717b510bddb0a56
6415 F20101109_AABZME manthorne_a_Page_16thm.jpg
23f5e4e98b4c525829929d57cc659308
18dcba13663f0487b000dd74ab00cd59278008f1
F20101109_AABZHH manthorne_a_Page_36.tif
3688ab76ce1307251eb5c8c84ac6946b
5796cfc6d60ee5f0b6678cc9b9efdd12888e5e4b
994735 F20101109_AABZCL manthorne_a_Page_22.jp2
0a7492c12aa0289d79abd31d9a0ff4c0
634f94b5d29e366e78af2ba5a82d1b7a46754aa6
25361 F20101109_AABZMF manthorne_a_Page_18.QC.jpg
af034cb0d19c7babed4d44e428303c16
947ff73be1ecd73d0b5df59d7b96f2feabaaf0f1
F20101109_AABZHI manthorne_a_Page_38.tif
1d4e310319be67bf8a3cf3b82b7bf891
6d4cd750ee39f6f4423dfe1c5b074ba9a6d2d1c3
80843 F20101109_AABZCM manthorne_a_Page_17.jpg
e40927f46b6546db6f885dc869d29cb9
b4a9a1ecc91b06e2373b6626129952172ac523e2
24603 F20101109_AABZMG manthorne_a_Page_21.QC.jpg
86cd974b056d726636fb4d3ae16195da
50e945beac7bfb85e08a78c07c651ff7701e0830
F20101109_AABZHJ manthorne_a_Page_39.tif
4035bd2af689c4a312eef10ed9c93372
3344b72989c1e7bb298ee8846eda9199da0330c0
44345 F20101109_AABZCN manthorne_a_Page_15.pro
134ea4680e426580b2236208c920e1a7
21b9641f12f318486a1bbe9f40a52ae725300f54
24572 F20101109_AABZMH manthorne_a_Page_16.QC.jpg
e312a920f33a7879808aa3f9ee7ccce7
0a7309a7f9e8f6b4b05b3f4a9d67abff82d37a35
F20101109_AABZHK manthorne_a_Page_40.tif
bddaabac7e876feaa635e38c138820ac
215c8df0a7f252d83169d63ccec8b5ec8e619fbf
1051975 F20101109_AABZCO manthorne_a_Page_50.jp2
416cef8160c004f45d52c2e9cfa5af87
1781cbeaa8081ba277460e7c393a076371996990
16195 F20101109_AABZMI manthorne_a_Page_55.QC.jpg
911524afa12a1148acc7296282b8fb5f
7b86afbd2ca3473f29407c92f7db5af29e740a3c
F20101109_AABZHL manthorne_a_Page_44.tif
e33a1ffb0098c93908a7387f29386057
89a6bb9197c4cd525615967564579d93c2a9aeca
8806 F20101109_AABZCP manthorne_a_Page_01.pro
05fe32dc54042bb92d25d2e4cd041518
3c557938812a95d8a7c1d773e71ba7f315d400a4
5405 F20101109_AABZMJ manthorne_a_Page_05thm.jpg
5207bdd7d72826f217cc9234cb03c51c
a097db58766c861a6ca394f244ef3b28e3dab1cd
F20101109_AABZHM manthorne_a_Page_45.tif
3419f117e57d9c329f58211219050c4f
6dd099c79889fcf13c0016bca032ab627f59d1e4
74621 F20101109_AABZCQ UFE0022320_00001.mets
56eb8a38349b565db117598ddae9705f
1c8328ca42b6ce4143cb94eb901c0e7d64be8ff3
22229 F20101109_AABZMK manthorne_a_Page_26.QC.jpg
aeec3db5e788186bdf908221f93cdfa0
2f1efa9c5d135cc1f96f0f402d63bb8caeba7a93
F20101109_AABZHN manthorne_a_Page_46.tif
5a9da0ffa87c28d091687b92d98dfc54
0a924f1caffa54ab2ce54c15a9b15b17b4cae3be
7539 F20101109_AABZML manthorne_a_Page_09.QC.jpg
177ce03224b9f1eb145319a6b3e3b631
5c460dfae245e1fea6911eb0d62ea5fe497b4d76
F20101109_AABZHO manthorne_a_Page_48.tif
c4f6dd97243c5f73579defca64f15f1e
8ba5df829faff4373106c1bb22878c80d7b5239b
7543 F20101109_AABZMM manthorne_a_Page_23thm.jpg
ec74312c7c370cd38b30d8cf24e50c5f
ebd2d9a620ac908cff4ed87b8174447802ec44e8
F20101109_AABZHP manthorne_a_Page_49.tif
53bdfc1a06cc2f4b9c6bac4b74e1af3b
d1bc36d9ea7a7487e20836f7d33d721ef36b5e48
26299 F20101109_AABZCT manthorne_a_Page_01.jpg
7e262a96c05740be5a760cb4f49cd5b9
c4cb05fe345a134e7b2cf3cd486435330cb4b49b
5920 F20101109_AABZMN manthorne_a_Page_42thm.jpg
f42fb358d1673d057aa6d66ce15c3d19
d6e8ab2c931bb85d453124e265551be442045ff6
F20101109_AABZHQ manthorne_a_Page_50.tif
c671cbffa9794347c8c910c652eac3c6
ebf7efcacf9fa6c6f791e38d5f46174dd09de337
10300 F20101109_AABZCU manthorne_a_Page_02.jpg
16c03a3bcd07d4b3af09b374a5d39a79
139ea46e9f43b22dcab24aceb4a15ab1b1ac8b27
12778 F20101109_AABZMO manthorne_a_Page_36.QC.jpg
ddf4825d77d23326171ffe9232c3f026
60ad3c719dd1f71dd59eaebc8f1a1a9b76d7a5ef
F20101109_AABZHR manthorne_a_Page_52.tif
ebeec0e8e20f7fbad4db23c4f53ed7f9
913501d7680fff2aa218b0636ea9f6e097fe8fb5
12851 F20101109_AABZCV manthorne_a_Page_03.jpg
ee2daab740bc7dbcd88049ff5e5e86b7
a35d4d54044229f951e8284d0e697a7c82b3ce89
8988 F20101109_AABZMP manthorne_a_Page_25.QC.jpg
957fa0abb911780583b9cca789c86b89
d228cbdf82d67d1847aad2cf9ce46155e7a46872
F20101109_AABZHS manthorne_a_Page_53.tif
c002519c3afbde1b045c22d07fc02770
9a61951082d92376c7d9a7e8e477e3d7dec32392
28794 F20101109_AABZCW manthorne_a_Page_04.jpg
71a0ad8a58ac88ae5a2808054bae2990
97d9b66887a0bf19d4e51c261d68f1a145d5d8f3
5219 F20101109_AABZMQ manthorne_a_Page_47thm.jpg
0a281ce7fd32588cce6a0948dd5f6208
3874ef68ca232df34c10c97af5606ae15c4ad334
F20101109_AABZHT manthorne_a_Page_55.tif
4cbfc681b774c9fc9704bbb0c91f11c9
d4bf3e73183470d4446d5f4994d93de34d4ba588
28330 F20101109_AABZMR manthorne_a_Page_60.QC.jpg
dfff0f911594a0b41bb827d4f476b0b9
66477f1c3a31613fbc3bf866798ed3c17f6c9c56
F20101109_AABZHU manthorne_a_Page_58.tif
b2e99dff7b17bc6213922f38c3480e17
d6a129d946905417b90185f5cf7b000fab5c4f2d
74223 F20101109_AABZCX manthorne_a_Page_05.jpg
dc9d7b2f051aafc23a6d9113836f9ff1
ca26857f3348f641a776efa0cf141d4b9c891b4c
17890 F20101109_AABZMS manthorne_a_Page_56.QC.jpg
fa3d0692a170c715cb95a71c11a30006
0d147975cdebedee9c1679700647a13b25e565fa
F20101109_AABZHV manthorne_a_Page_59.tif
a16d445ed605f2d5e13083b8c7b70618
e3f0d98ff7093ab915665ac702289a1d265c9b87
74852 F20101109_AABZCY manthorne_a_Page_06.jpg
bd393fec3aeecdbab9c145db43379fbd
62b41ef7e3ae05ea4e1c73eec85eb651080a44ee
6364 F20101109_AABZMT manthorne_a_Page_26thm.jpg
cc062c7331d6ccbd6e2db6cbc06780a2
014fcc7cbf44b775b706f4f95287512bbf53e192
F20101109_AABZHW manthorne_a_Page_60.tif
b494acd6f82636a2420d1a8da8723820
46c61f9a81e407be1428d9e31e188b1d70500551
F20101109_AABZAA manthorne_a_Page_37.tif
213e11f3455ff4a5cbcc6f3fa26074bc
47b5f3b9d48471f90e49405a7375b541d5e372e2







TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION STUDENTS



















By

AMANDA A. MANTHORNE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008



































2008 Amanda A. Manthorne

































To my parents, Dennis and Veronica, for their patience, continued love and unwavering
confidence in my abilities









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Dr. R. Raymond Issa for his subject offering and data analysis assistance. I thank

Dr. Svetlana Olbina for the opportunity to assist in her Graphics Communication course and Dr.

Esther Obonyo for the presentation of new technologies in her Methods Improvement course. I

thank all of my committee members for their recommendations in bettering this thesis.

I thank Dr. Leon Wetherington for allowing me to issue my survey to his students and Dr.

Robert Stroh for his data analysis assistance.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .7

LIST OF TABLES .............. .......................................................8

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ............................ 12

B ack g rou n d ................... ...................1...................2..........
State ent of the Problem .................. ............................... ....... ................ 12
P u rp o se of Study ............................................................................... 13
H ypotheses............................................................. ........ 13
Technology A ssessm ent ................................................................ ............... 13
Index Learning Styles Questionnaire ........................................ ......................... 13
Significance of Study ............... ............... ......... .............................. 13

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 15

In tro d u ctio n ................... ...................1...................5..........
C construction T technology ........... .................................................................. ................... 16
W eb -B asked C coordination ......... ........................................................... ............... 16
B building Inform ation M odeling ........................................................... .....................17
Web-Cam Usage .................................................. 19
H ybrid L earning E nvironm ent ............................................................. .....................20
Sensing Technologies ......... .... ........... .............. ........................... 21
W ikis ......... ...... ...... ..................... ............... 21

3 METHODOLOGY ............................. ...................... ........22

P u rp o se ............................................................................2 2
D design of Stu dy ................................................................22
D ata A naly sis................... .......................... .............. 24
M meeting Attendance and Course Assistance............................................. 24

4 R E SU L T S .............. ... ................................................................26

Introduction ..................................................................26
Sample Demographics ........................................................................ 26
U n d e rg ra d u ate ........................................................................................................... 2 6
G ra d u ate ................................................................2 6
T technology Skills A ssessm ent ......................................................................................... 27
Domain Specific Tools ....................................................................... ......... ................. 27









U ndergradu ate sam ple ...................................................................... ..................2 8
Graduate sam ple ................ ................. ...... .......... .. ...... .............. ... 28
Chi-squared test: Domain specific tools........................................ ............... 28
W eb-B asked T ools ..................... .... .. .......................... .... ........ .. ............. 29
U ndergradu ate sam ple ...................................................................... ..................29
G graduate sam ple ..................................................... .. .............. ... 29
Chi-squared test: W eb-based tools....................................... ......... ............... 30
Index of L earning Styles Q questionnaire ..................................................................... ...... 30
Graphics or Text ............................................................................. 31
U ndergradu ate sam ple ............ ....................................... ............ .. .... .... .. ..3 1
Graduate sample ....................... .......................................3 31
D details or Concepts................................................... 32
U ndergradu ate sam ple ...................................................................... .................. 32
G graduate sam ple ........................................................ ........ .......... ........ .32
Group or Individual .................................... .. ..................... 33
U ndergradu ate sam ple ...................................................................... .................. 33
G graduate sam ple ........................................................ ........ .......... ........ .34
Certainty or Creativity ............... ................ ......... ........ ..... ........ .. 34
U ndergradu ate sam ple ...................................................................... .................. 34
G rad u ate sam p le .............................................................................................. 3 5
L im ita tio n s ................................................................................................................. 3 5

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................... ............... 45

C o n c lu sio n s ............................................................................................................................. 4 5
T technology A ssessm ent ................................................................... ...... ...................45
Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire ......................................................................46
Recommendations for Related Study ..............................................................................47
Survey R ecom m endations .................................................................... .....................47
A d d itio n al S tu d ie s ..................................................................................................... 4 8
C lo sin g R e m ark s ............................................................................................................... 4 8

A P P E N D IX SU R V E Y ..................................................................................... ...................49

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................... ...................6 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................63














6










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 Demographic Survey Results, Undergraduate Work Experience.............................. 37

4-2 Demographic Survey Results, Graduate Work Experience ...........................................37

4-3 Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Undergraduate Students ......................37

4-4 Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Graduate Students. .............................38

4-5 Part A Survey Results, Web-Based Tools: Undergraduate Students.............................38

4-6 Part A Survey Results, Web-Based Tools: Graduate Students .......................................39

4-7 Undergraduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text. .................................. .................39

4-8 Graduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text. ........................................... ............... 40

4-9 Undergraduate Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts. ...................................................... 41

4-10 Graduate Learning Style: Detail vs. Concept. ...................................... ............... 41

4-11 Undergraduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.......................................................42

4-12 Graduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual...................................... ..................43

4-13 Undergraduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity........................................43

4-14 Graduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity.................................. ............... 44









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Learning Style: G graphic vs. Text. ........................................ .......................................40

4-2 Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts. ..........................................................................42

4-3 Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.......................................... ........................... 43

4-4 Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity. ........................................ ....................... 44









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABRC Architecture and Building Research Center

BIM building information modeling

CAD computer aided drafting

NTTA National Technical Training Authority

PDA personal digital assistant

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

UF-ITAC University of Florida Information Technology Council









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION STUDENTS

By

Amanda A. Manthorne

August 2008
Chair: R. Raymond Issa
Cochair: Svetlana Olbina
Major: Building Construction

The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether the benefits of technology

are being realized and appropriately presented in construction education. The purpose of this

thesis was to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of certain technologies and (2) discern a

learning style typical of building construction students. The goal of this study is to identify

technology-related deficiencies and formulate an efficient method of lesson delivery relevant to

the classroom and the industry.

A technology skills assessment and learning style questionnaire were administered to two

groups: undergraduate (34 students) and graduate students (41 students). The data was entered

into a spreadsheet and analyzed using statistical tools. The technology skill assessment focused

on the students' awareness and level of use of domain specific tools (AutoCAD, BIM) and web-

based tools (social networks, online forums, etc.). Relationships between the two samples were

tested using the Chi-squared test at a 95% level of confidence. The results of the two samples in

were significantly different in regard to 2D and 3D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic

resources. No significant difference was found in regard to 4D-CAD, social networks, and

online forums. The learning styles among undergraduate and graduate students differ.

Instructors should tailor their lesson delivery to students' preferences.









Presently, students have a low level of awareness and use of technologies such as 4D-

CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. Effective classroom delivery and

implementation of these technologies in the classroom will produce better prepared students who

will influence positive change within the construction industry.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

Improvements in technology have resulted in economic gain due to productivity increases

for many industries; however, while the "U.S. economy has been increasing its annual

productivity at a rate of close to 3%, the construction industry has averaged an annual increase

of less then 1%" (Adrian 2004). Adrian suggests that a lack of research and development within

construction firms, in addition to a number of other reasons, may be a factor. Implementing new

construction methods and management techniques could positively affect productivity levels.

It is estimated that 3% of a field laborer's non-productive time can be attributed to the

punch list, 5% to late or inaccurate information, and 2% to redo work (Adrian 2004). This total

idle time of 10% results in a loss of productivity that could be reduced if the right technologies

were implemented. The application of the right technology can improve the level of

communication and planning, benefiting all project stakeholders.

Familiarity with the latest technologies is an important characteristic in gaining success in

the construction industry. The willingness to learn and use this technology benefits both students

and industry professionals. When introducing new technologies, a tailored lesson delivery that

coincides with students' preferences will benefit students, instructors, and eventually, industry.

Statement of the Problem

The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether the benefits of technology

are being realized and appropriately presented in construction education. The survey shown in

The Appendix was used to collect data from two groups of students. The groups were first

semester junior undergraduate students and newly enrolled graduate students.









Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to first assess the level of familiarity and use of certain

technologies among building construction students at the University of Florida. Secondly, this

study is intended to discern a learning style typical of the population to aid instructors in their

method of lesson delivery. Comparative analysis will be performed among two sample groups

of Rinker School students, first semester undergraduate and newly enrolled graduate students.

Conclusions will be drawn from results compiled from the administered survey (Appendix).

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses are presented below in the order in which their corresponding

statements appear on the survey (Appendix). The hypotheses apply to the undergraduate and

graduate student samples:

Technology Assessment

* HYPOTHESIS 1. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use 4D and nD-
CAD technologies.
* HYPOTHESIS 2. Students regardless of academic classification frequently use social
networks
* HYPOTHESIS 3. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use online forums
* HYPOTHESIS 4. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use web/video
conferencing.

Index Learning Styles Questionnaire

* HYPOTHESIS 5. The student population regardless of academic classification favors
graphic over textual presentation.
* HYPOTHESIS 6. The student population regardless of academic classification favors
learning details over concepts.
* HYPOTHESIS 7. The student population regardless of academic classification favors group
over individualized learning environments
* HYPOTHESIS 8. The student population regardless of academic classification favors
certainty over creativity.
Significance of Study

The findings of this study will benefit the construction industry at all levels- students,

instructors, and professionals. Students' level of use of different technologies will be measured









and used to improve course content and lesson delivery. Technological deficiencies related to

specific technologies can be identified and reduced by the inclusion of those topics into the

curriculum. The construction industry benefits from the assessment of the level of technological

knowledge among students. Curricula and lesson delivery changes made as a result of this study

will produce graduates who are better prepared to deal with future issues.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Familiarizing the student with the latest technology in their field better prepares them for

their career following completion of their degree. Technologically-aware employees force

industry to adapt to improved methods. By applying technologies currently taught in the

classroom, the construction industry can achieve increased levels of efficiency.

Adrian (2004) highlights the following four areas where technology improvements

positively affect productivity:

* Reducing tedious, time consuming, and inaccurate project paper work that characterizes
the construction process.

* Enabling of the collection of new information that should enable improved measurement
of productivity such that corrections can be made and benchmarking can be performed.

* Improving project design documents to reduce or eliminate productivity delays related to
errors or omissions.

* Aid in integrating the project owner, designer, and constructor into a team to improve
communication and information transfer.

Oftentimes, an on-site supervisor spends much of their time recording data or keeping

records. This leaves less time for them to attend to their primary role- supervising construction

in the field. With increased interest in technology both at the university and industry level, these

inefficiencies will become less prevalent. The "construction industry is in the early stages of a

profound revolution in jobsite technology that will likely change the industry more in the next

ten years than any other time in history" (Adrian 2004). The following section discusses a few

of these technologies, their benefits, and applications.









Construction Technology


Web -Based Coordination

According to Purdue University "1-2% of project cost is simply paperwork, $500mil/year

is spent on FedEx(US) and no group has more than 65% of the project record at project close"

(http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/ECT/Intemet/projectcenter.aspx). Many companies have developed

software to remedy these reoccurring, communication-related, issues.

Autodesk Constructware is a web-based application that reduces the inherent risks

associated with complex projects by merging objects essential to that project into one, project-

based database. This allows for clear communication among all project stakeholders.

Immediate access to information, a centralized database that minimizes the need for multiple

logins, numerous workflow process improvements, and file management are some of the benefits

touted on the Autodesk Constructware website -

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=6871224&sitelD=123112. These benefits are

realized by increased accountability, improved risk management and reduced costs.

Bricsnet's ProjectCenter offers features similar to Autodesk Constructware. There is no

software to load, nor any hardware to manage. Bricsnet claims that training is simple and that

their product is a proven money-saver; "ProjectCenter clients report savings of as much as 50%

on printing, copying and shipping, as well as savings of 20% or more on travel"

(http://bricsnet.com/html/projectcenterbenefits.htm).

Yet another option is Meridian Project Systems Inc.'s Prolog Web-based project

management software. It is also an internet based collaboration application. Prolog allows the

user to monitor the project from anywhere at anytime, facilitating "real time" communication

among team members.









Lastly, e-Builder offers a competing collaboration system. The e-Builder Collaborator for

Construction Management streamlines the collaboration process, reduces risk and improves

efficiency. Additionally, the product claims to eliminate the high costs associated with bid

distribution, mitigate risk by automating the management and tracking of change orders, and

organize the construction schedule online using shared calendar capabilities (http://www.e-

builder.net/products/collaborator.html).

Al-Musallam (2002) proposes a web-based coordination system in his study that addresses

the following three factors and conditions:

* Each member of the construction team may need different information about the same
building component or element

* The drawings are the important key information source to start the process of searching for
information element.

* The importance of integrating and coordinating the drawings with all other construction
documents at the building components level.

Al-Musallam's proposed system achieves the above by linking building components on the

drawings to their corresponding documents, such as specifications, schedules, codes/standards

and details, etc. The software described is similar to the current web-based options described

previously in this chapter and seems to be a precursor for the most recent technological

development, building information modeling (BIM).

Building Information Modeling

The purpose for using BIM is to mitigate loss by way of avoidance from early detection,

mitigation of unnecessary repetition, eliminating delay and decommissioning costs/losses. The

Facility Information Council provides an industry-wide forum for the standardization and

integration of construction-related computer software. The council's website

(http://facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/index.php) believes that building information models









are an important method for reducing the cost of construction, from inception to closeout. The

council believes the current construction process is inefficient, costing more and requiring too

much time to deliver (http://facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/index.php). This is due to the

great amount of coordination from all of the building stakeholders.

The benefits of building information modeling (BIM) are currently being felt in the

construction industry and in the educational system. Referred to as "tensegrity," BIM "is a

technology that can be applied to structures" that "can influence the construction time efficiency

and construction project management in general" (Charalambides 2004). Charalambides notes

that the complexity of structures being built may be to blame for the slow inclusion of this

technology by architects and engineers. It is widely believed that greater efficiency results from

the use of such programs.

Outside of the United States, in Bhutan, the notion of a professionally trained architect is a

new concept. There, carpenters and masons were solely responsible for both the design and

construction phases of a project (Dorji 2001). Due to recent advances in the construction

industry, this outdated system is slowly being replaced by one more like what is found in the

United States. In partnership with the National Technical Training Authority (NTTA), Dorji

(2001) proposed an educational center called the Architecture and Building Research Centre

(ABRC). The ABRC is divided into two levels: a Diploma level and a Degree level.

Sustainability, as well as an emphasis on building, will be at the core of the program (Dorji

2001). Dorji does not mention the inclusion of 4D-CAD, although the inclusion of this

curriculum at the early stages of education would subsequently carry over into Bhutan's

construction industry, putting them at the forefront of building technology,









Web-Cam Usage

Hands-on experience in construction allows students, especially those believed to be visual

learners, to have a better understanding of building construction. However, making field trips a

common curricula feature poses many difficulties. Scheduling visits to construction sites may

hinder that project's productivity, and therefore may be viewed as unfavorable among project

administrators. Additionally, this may create safety hazards to both students and on-site labor

due to distractions. Lastly, logistics are difficult. Professors find it difficult to have all students

in attendance when the field trip is in an unfamiliar location or scheduled at an inconvenient

time.

Shaurette (2007) investigated the use of web-cam technology within Purdue University's

Construction Management Program. Shaurette suggested that webcam technology could be used

as an alternative to the traditional field trip, while avoiding the aforementioned drawbacks. The

results of the study concluded that users found webcam file trips to be as good as or better than

conventional field trips (Shaurette 2007). The following is a condensed, summarized list of

"Webcam Field Trip Best Practices":

* Field trip coordination should be the responsibility of one person. This is a good
opportunity for a graduate student.

* Show as much of the jobsite as possible. Students prefer this method.

* Provide a field trip outline to field personnel. Also, let them know of any questions the
instructor may ask them. This will better prepare them the field trip.

* Encourage students to ask questions at anytime during the session. As the instructor, ask
few questions, as asking too many may discourage student participation.

* Provide handouts when screen resolution is not adequate.

* Archive webcam lessons for future use.









Webcam lessons are an effective solution to allow students to gain on-site experience when

site access is difficult.

Hybrid Learning Environment

The phrase "hybrid learning environment" refers to a course structure that combines both

the traditional face-to-face learning environment and web-based communication (Whiteside

2007). Most major universities offer this type of learning environment in addition to the

traditional on-campus classroom setting or an entirely online format.

The University of Florida most recently implemented a hybrid platform known as e-

learning. This allows a student to correspond with their professors and peers away from campus.

At anytime, they can contact each other and their instructor with questions and concerns.

Additionally, instructors often post assignments, lectures, and additional resources for student

use. This coordination platform is closely related to those used in the construction industry (as

discussed in this chapter's web-cased coordination section) and is intended to improve

communication and coordination deficiencies.

Apple's ItunesU is a more recent application that can be used as a component of a hybrid

system. Apple's ItunesU provides 24/7 access to educational material from top universities, and

is accessible using a Mac or a PC. The application offers increased accessibility when compared

to applications such as e-learning. ItunesU keeps students motivated by more actively engaging

them- the product offers vivid audio and video that increase student interest when compared to

traditional printed note pages. This application allows schools to make their academic content

public to whomever they choose. Alumni, parents, and anyone else may have access to course

material if the institution chooses. Since the web is often the first place students go to share

ideas, and to perform preliminary research on an unfamiliar subject, ItunesU allows faculty to

reach students beyond the traditional classroom setting. Not only can instructors upload lectures,









they can enable students to engage in experiences specific to their field of study, such as

providing convenient access to on-site construction

(http://www.apple.com/education/itunesumobilelearing/itunesu.html).

Sensing Technologies

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a type of sensing technology that connects

objects to the internet or databases, so their location can be tracked and object-specific data can

be accessed centrally. A transponder is placed on the object and a scanner is used to read data

off the transponder using radio waves. This technology can be used as a method of quality

control in construction by tracking material location and installation, providing theft detection,

and the correct component and device are implemented (EraBuild 2006).

Furthermore, Teizer proposes using 3D modeling sensing technology as a way to prevent

injury and death on a construction site. By rapidly creating a spatial model of the existing state

of the construction site, visualization and communication are improved, and a reduction in

human injury and death is realized (Teizer 2006).

Wikis

A wiki is a blog-like internet based platform that allows users to edit posted content as they

please. The platforms' ease of use makes them effective in setting where collaboration is

desired, such as distance education. James Coyle studied the use of wiki in higher education. His

study compared both traditional face-to-face collaboration and web-based wiki. The findings

were generally positive. He found that although students were not comfortable with editing their

peers' work, and would not do so unless they were officially designated to be the editor, wikis

were an effective collaboration method that allowed students to work at their desired pace while

still having access to their peers' work (Coyle 2007).











CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of specific

construction-related technologies and (2) discern a learning style typical of students enrolled in

the School of Building Construction.

Design of Study

Two groups of students enrolled in courses within the Rinker School of Building

Construction at the University of Florida were asked to complete a survey entitled "Technology

Skills Assessment Survey" (Appendix). One group was composed of 34 undergraduates, first

semester students, and the second group was composed of 41 first semester, graduate students.

The 12-page survey is divided into three sections- demographics and background information, a

technology skills assessment, and a learning styles questionnaire.

The first section collects the demographical data of each survey respondent such as age

group, gender, current academic standing, current academic major, targeted job location upon

graduation (USA or other), years of work experience, current or intended work area, and level of

oral and written English proficiency. This information allows the researcher to make accurate

comparisons.

Section two, the technology skills assessment section, is broken down further, into two

subsections. The first subsection asks students to indicate whether or not they are aware of the

following technology groups: hardware devices, office document tools, domain specific tools,

and web-based tools. Each of these groups is then divided into smaller categories, ordered

largely by their date of marketplace entry, of which students were asked to respond as to whether









or not they were familiar with the technology and rate their level of use. A Likert scale was used

where 1 corresponded with "Never," 2 with "Rarely (a few times a year)," 3 with "Occasionally

(once or twice a month)," 4 with "Often (weekly basis)," and 5 with "Very often (daily basis)."

Zero (0) indicates the student is not aware that the technology exists. The group Hardware

Devices seeks to gather information in regard to students' use and familiarity with basic

hardware, handheld devices (iPods, PDAs), and sensing technologies. Office Document Tools

seeks to gather information in regard to students' use and familiarity with typical office

document tools (word processors, spread sheets, presentations), graphic and web design tools

(Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc.), and Knowledge and Data Management Tools such as MS

access and EndNote. For the purpose of this study, data is analyzed from the last two

subsections: Domain Specific Tools and Web-Based Tools. The subsection Domain Specific

Tools is intended to gather more information in regard to structural and architectural design

tools, 2D and 3D-CAD (AutoCAD, etc.), and 4D-and nD-CAD (BIM, etc.). The last group,

Web-Based Tools gathers information regarding the familiarity and use of email and instant

messaging, search engines, social networks, online forums/wikis/blogs, Web/Video conferences,

and electronic resources (online publications, YouTube, etc.).

The second subsection of the Technology Skills Assessment, Part B, lists 42 technology-

related statements. These statements "describe how different technologies can be used in certain

contexts to promote learning or improve work proficiency" (Appendix). For each statement, the

student is asked to rate the degree of topic relevance, their level of topic understanding, and their

level of topic experience using a Likert scale. For example, the first statement reads, "I use

technology to keep up with course requirements and assignments, such as word processing,

spreadsheets, email, online document sharing tools, and basic software programs" (Appendix).









Although the data from this section was collected, it was deemed irrelevant to the purpose of this

study and not analyzed.

The final section of the survey is titled "Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire." This

section asks the student 44 questions seeking to identify their preferred learning method. Each

question is phrased as a statement, and the student is instructed to respond by selecting one of the

two options- "a" or "b." For example, the first question in this section reads "I understand

something better after I"; the two corresponding response options read "(a) try it out" and "(b)

think it through" (Appendix). The questions are designed to reveal whether the student prefers

graphic of textual information delivery, prefers details or concepts, group or individual learning,

and certainty or creativity.

Data Analysis

The graduate students were surveyed in December 2007 and the undergraduate students

were surveyed in the January 2008. Their responses to each query were entered into a MS Excel

spreadsheet. This allowed the data from the demographics, Technology Skills Assessment, and

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire sections to be statistically analyzed. Questions were

analyzed based on their perceived relevance to Building Construction education. Bar graphs

were created to graphically illustrate relationships and tendencies. To compare undergraduate

and graduate students, data compiled from the Technology Skills Assessment was further

analyzed using Chi-squared tests.

Meeting Attendance and Course Assistance

The author also attended three University of Florida Information Technology Advisory

Council (UF-ITAC) meetings in the spring of 2008. The purpose of these meetings was to

discuss the implementation of technology that can improve the quality of education at the

university. These meetings provided the opportunity to witness discussion on technology









implementation including distance learning, webcam usage, and ItunesU. Also during the spring

2008 semester, the author assisted students in their AutoCAD laboratory sessions of a Computer

and Graphics Communication course taught at the University of Florida. It was during this time

that the relationship and varying levels of interest and success among students and technology

became evident. These experiences are mentioned because it is likely that the exposure

influenced the writing of this document.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Introduction

This study's intent is to assess the level of technology awareness and use among college-

level building construction students and to determine if a prevalent learning style exists. As

discussed in Chapter 3, each section of the survey investigates a different, albeit related, issue.

This chapter is organized into three sections: sample demographics, technology skills

assessment, and index of learning styles questionnaires. Each of these three sections discusses

the results of both sample groups, undergraduate and graduate students, separately and

comparatively.

Sample Demographics

Undergraduate

All students surveyed were in the age group 18-25. Five (14.7%) of the 34 persons

surveyed were female. Two (5.8%) of the students were sophomores, thirty (88.2%) are juniors

and two are seniors (5.8%). All students intended to work in the United States following their

graduation. Five (15 %) of the students surveyed had no construction experience; 23 (67%)

reported having less than two years experience, 12% (4) report two to five years of experience,

and the remaining two (6%) had more than 5 years of construction experience (Figure 4-1).

Twenty-six students, or 76.5% of those surveyed, intended to work in management, while one

(2.9%) intend to hold support roles, and 14.7% prefer supervision. No students intended to work

in the labor area. The entire sample was proficient in both spoken and written English.

Graduate

Twenty-five (61%) of the 41 students surveyed were in the age group 18-25. Fifteen

(36.5%) were between the ages of 25 and 35. One person (2.4%) was between the ages of 34









and 45. Nine (22%) of the 41 persons surveyed are female. All students were in there first

semester of enrolment in the Rinker School of Building Construction graduate program. All

students intended to work in the United States following their graduation. Thirty-seven percent

of students surveyed have no construction experience, 29% report having less than two years

experience, 24% report 2 to 5 years, and the remaining 10% (four students) have more than 5

years of construction experience (Figure 4-2). Sixty-five percent of those surveyed intend to

work in management, while 13.9% intend to hold support roles, and 18.8% prefer supervision.

No students intend to work in the labor area and one student (2.4%) selected 'other.' Thirty-one

(75.6%) of the 41 students reported being orally "proficient" in the English language. Six

students believed themselves to be "fluent," and the remaining four (9.8%) identified their skill

level as "sufficient." Similarly, in regard to written English proficiency, 32 of the 41 students

(78%) considered themselves proficient, four "fluent," and the remaining 5 (12.2%) were

"sufficient."

Technology Skills Assessment

Both sample groups, graduate students and undergraduate students, were asked to rate their

level of use of 15 technologies ranging from basic hardware to 4D-CAD. For this study's

purposes, the results will be analyzed from only two of the four surveyed categories- domain

specific tools and web-based tools. The other two categories, hardware devices and office

document tools, are considered to be common technologies to the age group and not relevant to

the subject area.

Domain Specific Tools

The first category studied, Domain Specific Tools, sought to determine whether students

were aware of certain technologies commonly used in the construction industry, as well as the

corresponding level of use. The technologies were presented in the order of their market entry.









The three technologies included in the Domain Specific Tools category include (1) structural and

architectural design tools (e.g., SAP2000, ADINA, STAAD-Pro, ArchiCAD), (2) 2D- & 3D-

CAD (e.g., AutoCAD, AutoDesk, MicroStation), and (3) 4D-and nD-CAD (e.g., Design +

Schedule + Cost/Others). Data from category (1) was considered outdated and not analyzed.

Undergraduate sample

All undergraduate students surveyed were aware of the domain specific tools or CAD

programs. Figure 4-3 graphically presents the results. The most common response, or mode, in

regard to the level of use of 2D-CAD and 3D-CAD such as Auto CAD, was 'never' with 18 of

the 34 (53%) undergraduate students surveyed reported never using AutoCAD or products of a

similar technological level. The response for 4D and nD-CAD such as BIM is more varied;

however, the most common response, or mode, in this case also was 'never,' with 10 of the 34

(29%) respondents selecting this option.

Graduate sample

All of the 41 graduate students surveyed were aware of the noted domain specific tools.

Figure 4-4 illustrates the survey findings. The most common response, or mode, was 'never' or

1 for both levels of CAD technology. Five of the 41 (12%) respondents reported 'never' using

2D or 3D-CAD technologies, while 10 (24%) respondents reported 'never' using 4D or nD-CAD

technologies.

Chi-squared test: Domain specific tools

The data set analyzed using descriptive statistics (Figures 4-3 and 4-4) was also analyzed

using the Chi-squared test at a 95% confidence level. For 2D and 3D-CAD, the calculated chi-

squared value was 8.638. This value is greater than the tabulated value of 7.81(Ostle and

Malone 1988) (degrees of freedom=3). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the two

samples' responses. Conversely, the Chi-squared calculated value found by analyzing the data









from the 4D and nD-CAD responses yielded a response of 3.646, a value less than the tabulated

value of 7.81 (Ostle and Malone 1988) (degrees of freedom=3). Therefore there is no significant

difference between the two samples.

Web-Based Tools

The second category studied, Web-Based Tools, sought to determine whether students

were aware of certain internet communication platforms, as well as their corresponding level of

use. The technologies were presented in the order of their market entry. Of the six technologies

presented in the category, four of the more modern technologies were selected for further study.

These include the following: (1) social networks (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIN), (2)

Online forums/Wikis/Blogs, (3) Web/Video conferences (e.g., Webinar), and (4) Electronic

Resources (e.g., online publications, online libraries, YouTube).

Undergraduate sample

The entire sample of 34 students, were aware of all of the presented web-based

technologies (Figure 4-5). Thirty students reported using social networks such as Facebook and

MySpace very often or on a daily basis. The use of online forums such as wikis and blogs are

also common among undergraduate students, with 24 of the 41 (58.5%) members sampled citing

using the technology 'very often' or on a daily basis.

Graduate sample

Social networks such as Facebook and MySpace were cited as the most commonly used

web-based tool, with 27 of the 41 graduate students (66%) surveyed reported using them 'very

often' or on a daily basis. Twenty-four (58.5%) students reported using Online Forums 'very

often.' Seven (17%) students reported using Web/Video Conferences 'very often.' The most

common response in regard to Electronic Resources was 'very often' at 39%, while the least

common was 'never,' with 1 respondent (Figure 4-6).









Chi-squared test: Web-based tools

The data set analyzed using descriptive statistics (Figures 4.5 and 4.6) was also analyzed

using the Chi-squared test. In regard to social networks, the calculated Chi-squared value is

3.507. This value is less than the tabulated value of 7.81 (Ostle and Malone 1988) (using

degrees of freedom equal to 3). Therefore, with a 95% confidence level, there is no significant

difference between the two samples' responses.

The online forum section also revealed no significant difference between the two samples

at a 95% confidence level. The calculated Chi-squared value is 4.267. Using degrees of

freedom equal to two, the tabulated value is 5.99 (Ostle and Malone 1988). The calculated value

is less than the tabulated value.

A significant difference was found in regard to web/video conferences. The calculated

Chi-squared value is 32.484. The tabulated value found (degrees of freedom=2) is 5.99(Ostle

and Malone 1988). The tabulated value is less than the calculated value. Using two degrees of

freedom and with a 95% confidence level, it is determined that there is a significant difference

between the two samples.

At a 95% confidence level, the level of use of electronic resources was found to differ

significantly between the two samples. The calculated Chi-squared value is equal to 16.378

(Ostle and Malone 1988), while the tabulated value (three degrees of freedom) is lower at 7.81.

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire

This section sought to reveal a particular learning style prevalent among students in the

Building Construction program at the University of Florida. Each of the 44 questions in this

section is grouped into one of the following four learning style categories: (1) graphic or text, (2)

details or concepts, (3) group or individual, and (4) certainty or creativity. The x-axis on all









graphs pictured in this section is labeled with the corresponding survey question's number.

Refer to the corresponding tables or the Appendix for clarification.

Graphics or Text

Eleven of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population is largely

composed of students who learn best from graphics or text. Of the two possible responses, (a)

refers to graphics and (b) refers to texts (Table 4-1).

Undergraduate sample

Figure 4-7 shows undergraduate students' preference of graphic presentation over textual.

Statement number three reads, "When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most likely to get"

The options include (a) picture and (b) words. Thirty-two (94%) of the 34 student sampled

selected picture. Statement number 19 reads "I remember best" and the corresponding options

include "(a) what I see" and "(b) what I hear." Twenty-nine of the 34 students surveyed selected

option "a." For entertainment, 26 (85%) of the 34 students, would rather (statement 39) "(a)

watch television," compared to eight students who prefer to "(b) read a book."

Graduate sample

The graph in Figure 4-8 shows graduate students' preference of graphic presentation over

textual. Statement number three reads, "When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most

likely to get" The options include "(a) picture" and "(b) words." Thirty-seven of the 41 student

sample, or 90%, selected picture. Statement number 19 reads "I remember best" and the

corresponding options include "(a) what I see" and "(b) what I hear." Thirty-seven of the 41

students surveyed (90%) selected option "a." For entertainment, 30 of the 41 students, or 73%,

would rather (statement 39) "(a) watch television," compared to eleven (26.8%) students who

prefer to "(b) read a book."









Statement 15 is the only statement that produced results inconsistent with the other

statements. The statement reads, "I like teachers" The two corresponding options are "(a) who

put a lot of diagrams on the board" and "(b) who spend a lot of time explaining." Twenty-three

of the 34 (67%) undergraduate students selected option "b" for text. Twenty-four (59%) of the

41 graduate students selected option "a" or graphics.

Details or Concepts

Eleven of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population is largely

composed of detail-oriented learners of conceptual learners. Of the two possible responses, (a)

refers to details and (b) refers to concepts (Table 4-2).

Undergraduate sample

Statement 20 reads, "It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in

clear sequential steps" or "(b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other

subjects." Twenty-four (71%) of the 34 students selected "a," or the detail option. Statement 24

reads, "I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, I'll get it" or "(b) in fits and starts. I'll

be totally confused and then suddenly it all clicks." Twenty-one of the 34 undergraduate

students surveyed selected "a" for regular pace. Statement 28 reads, "When considering a body

of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big picture" or "(b) try to

understand the big picture before getting into the details." Seventy percent or 24 undergraduate

students, selected "b," the concept option (Figure 4-9).

Graduate sample

Statement 20 reads, "It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in

clear sequential steps" or "(b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other

subjects." Twenty-two of the 41 (54%) students selected "a," the detail option. Statement 24

reads, "I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, I'll get it" or "(b) in fits and starts. I'll









be totally confused and then suddenly it all clicks." Twenty-seven of the 41 (66%) graduate

students surveyed selected "a" for regular pace. Statement 28 reads, "When considering a body

of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big picture" or "(b) try to

understand the big picture before getting into the details." Sixty-seven percent (27) graduate

students, selected "b," the concept option (Figure 4-10).

The two samples, undergraduates and graduates, had similar preferences on all statements

other than statement 32 and 40. Statement 32 reads, "When writing a paper, I am more likely to

(a) work on (think about or write) the beginning of the paper and progress forward" or "(b)

brainstorm individually and then come together as a group to compare ideas." Twenty-six of the

34 (76.5%) undergraduate students selected "a," the details option, while 27 (66%) of the 41

graduate students selected "b," the concept option.

Statement 40 reads, "Some teachers start their lectures with an outline of what they will

cover. Such outlines are (a) somewhat helpful to me" or "(b) very helpful to me." Sixty-eight

percent of undergraduate respondents selected "a," the details option. Of the 41 person graduate

sample, 16 students selected "a," with the remaining 25 (61%) students selecting "b," the

concept option.

Group or Individual

Six of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population prefers learning

in a group setting or individually. Of the two possible responses, (a) refers to group and (b)

refers to individual (Table 4-3).

Undergraduate sample

Statement 13 reads, "In classes I have taken (a) I have usually gotten to know many of the

students" or "(b) I have rarely gotten to know many of the students." Twenty-two, or 65%,

believe themselves to be more group-oriented, selecting "a." Statement 21 reads, "I prefer to









study in a (a) group" or "(b) alone." Twenty-one (61.7%) survey respondents prefer to study

alone. Statement 41 reads "The idea of doing homework in groups, with one grade for the entire

group (a) appeals to me" or "(b) does not appeal to me." Twenty-two students (65%) selected

option "b," corresponding to the 'individual' option (Figure 4-11).

Graduate sample

Statement 13 reads, "In classes I have taken (a) I have usually gotten to know many of the

students" or "(b) I have rarely gotten to know many of the students." Twenty-three (56%)

believe themselves to be more group-oriented, selecting "a." Statement 21 reads, "I prefer to

study in a (a) group" or "(b) alone." Eighty-three percent (34) of the students surveyed prefer to

study alone. Statement 41 reads "The idea of doing homework in groups, with one grade for the

entire group (a) appeals to me" or "(b) does not appeal to me." Twenty-three (56%) select option

"b" for individual (Figure 4-12).

Both samples, undergraduate and graduate students, responded similarly to many of the six

questions contained in this section. However, statement 21 yielded different results. When

students are asked if they prefer to study in a group or alone, 62% of undergraduate students and

82% of graduate students selected "individual", option "b."

Certainty or Creativity

Nine of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population identifies

themselves as preferring facts and certainty or theory and creativity. Of the two possible

responses, (a) refers to certainty and (b) refers to creativity (Table 4-4).

Undergraduate sample

Statement 2 reads, "I would rather be considered (a) realistic" or "(b) innovative." Sixty-

two percent of undergraduate students selected "(a) realistic." Statement 6 reads, "If I were a

teacher, I would rather teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life situations" or "(b) that









deals with ideas and theories." Ninety-one percent of students, or 31, selected "a", the certainty

option. Statement 18 reads, "I prefer the idea of (a) certainty" or "(b) theory." Twenty-six

students (76%) selected (a) certainty (Figure 4-13).

Graduate sample

Statement 2 reads, "I would rather be considered (a) realistic" or "(b) innovative."

Twenty-four of the 41 graduate students selected (a) realistic (59%). Statement 6 reads, "If I

were a teacher, I would rather teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life situations" or

"(b) that deals with ideas and theories." Seventy-three percent (30) of students selected "a", the

certainty option. Statement 18 reads, "I prefer the idea of (a) certainty" or "(b) theory." Thirty-

two students (78%) selected (a) certainty (Figure 4-14).

With the exception of statement 34, both sample groups demonstrated similar preferences

in regard to certainty and creativity. Statement 34 reads, "I consider it higher praise to call

someone (a) sensible" of"(b) imaginative." Fifty-five percent (19) of the 34 undergraduate

students surveyed, selected "a", while 54% of the graduate sample group selected "b."

Limitations

Undergraduate students were surveyed in the beginning of the spring 2008 semester.

Graduate students were surveyed at the end of the fall 2007 semester. The survey was not

designed to identify the undergraduate degree of the graduate students. Additionally, Chi

squared tests were used to analyze data collected from the technology skills section of the survey

only. Certain subjects in the survey were considered outdated. Data from these subjects was

collected but not analyzed. For example, the Domain Specific Tools category includes structural

architectural design tools such as SAP2000 and ADINA. These programs have since been

replaced by 2D, 3D, 4D and nD systems; therefore structural architectural design tools were not

analyzed.












6%
120/n


15%


m none
m less than 2 years
o 2-5 years
o more than 5 years

67%



Figure 4-1. Demographic Survey Results, Undergraduate Work Experience.


10%/


37%


* none
* less than 2 years
o 2-5 years
a more than 5 years


29%


Figure 4-2. Demographic Survey Results, Graduate Work Experience.


I I

6'


m 2D & 3D-CAD
m 4D &nD-CAD


Level of Use


Figure 4-3. Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Undergraduate Students.


e0


















m 2D & 3D-CAD
m 4D &nD-CAD


Level of Use


Figure 4-4. Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Graduate Students.


30
25-
20 -
15 -


5-
10








Level of Use


Figure 4-5.Part A Survey Results, Web-Based Tools: Undergraduate Students.


* Social Networks
m Online Forums
o VVebVideo Confs.
o Elec. Resources















* Social Networks
* Online Forums
SVVeb/Video Confs.
o Elec. Resources


I E
4?
1A


Level of Use

Figure 4-6. Part A Survey Results, Web-Based Tools: Graduate Students.



35
30
25-
E20 m (a)graphics
15- (b)text


5-

3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43
corresponding survey question

Figure 4-7. Undergraduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text.











40
35
30-
S25 (a)graphics
20
15 m (b)text
10-


3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43
corresponding survey question


Figure 4-8. Graduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text.





Table 4-1. Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text.
Corresponding Survey Questions
3 When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most likely to get (a) picture or (b) words.
7 I prefer to get new information in (a) pictures, diagrams, graphs or maps or (b) written
directions or verbal information.
11 In a book with lots of pictures and charts, I am likely to (a) look over the pictures and charts
carefully or (b) focus on the written text.
15 I like teachers (a) who put a lot of diagrams on the board or (b) who spend a lot of time
explaining.
19 I remember best (a) what I see or (b) what I hear.
23 When I get directions to a new place, I prefer (a) a map or (b) written instructions.
27 When I see diagram or sketch in class, I am most likely to remember (a) the picture or (b)
what the instructor said about it.
31 When someone is showing me data, I prefer (a) charts or graphs or (b) text summarizing the
results.
35 When I meet people at a party, I am morel likely to remember (a) what they looked like or
(b) what they said about themselves.
39 For entertainment, I would rather (a) watch television or (b) read a book.
43 I tend to picture places I have been (a) easily and accurately or (b) with difficulty and
without much detail.














30
S25
20
S15
10
5
0


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
corresponding survey question


Figure 4-9. Undergraduate Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts.


* (a)details
* (b)concepts


40 44


* (a)details
* (b)cocepts


4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
corresponding survey question


Figure 4-10. Graduate Learning Style: Detail vs. Concept.


40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0









Table 4-2. Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts.
Corresponding Survey Question
4 I tend to (a) understand details of a subject but may be fuzzy about its overall structure or
(b) understand the overall structure but may be fuzzy about details.
8 Once I understand (a) all the parts, I understand the whole thing or (b) the whole thing, I see
how the parts fit.
12 When I solve math problems (a) I usually work my way to the solutions one step at a time
(b) I often just see the solutions but then have to struggle to figure out the steps to get to
them.
16 When I'm analyzing a story or novel (a) I think of the incidents and try to put them together
to figure out the themes (b) I just know what the themes are when I finish reading and then I
have to go back and find the incidents that demonstrate them.
20 It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps
or (b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other subjects.
24 I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, I'll "get it" or (b) in fits and starts. I'll be
totally confused and then suddenly it all "clicks."
28 When considering a body of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss
the big picture or (b) try to understand the big picture before getting into the details.
32 When writing a paper, I am more likely to (a) work on (think about or write) the beginning
of the paper and progress forward or (b) work on (think about or write) different parts of the
paper and then order them.
36 When I am learning a new subject, I prefer to (a) stay focused on that subject or (b) try to
make connections between that subject and related subjects.
40 Some teachers start their lectures with an outline of what they will cover. Such outlines are
(a) somewhat helpful to me or (b) very helpful to me.
44 When solving problems in a group, I would be more likely to (a) think of the steps in the
solution process or (b) think of possible steps in the solution process or (b) think of possible
consequences or applications of the solution in a wide range of areas.

25


S15 (a)groLp
So10 (b)indidual
5-

0--i i
9 13 21 33 37 41
corresponding survey question
Figure 4-11 Undergraduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.











40
35
S30 -


15o

5-
0-
9 13 21 33 37 41
corresponding survey question

Figure 4-12. Graduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.



Table 4-3 Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.


S(a)group
S(b)individual


Corresponding Survey Questions
9 In a study group working on difficult material, I am more likely to (a) jump in and
contribute ideas or (b) sit back and listen.
13 In classes I have taken (a) I have usually gotten to know many of the students or (b) I have
rarely gotten to know many of the students.
21 I prefer to study (a) in a study group or (b) alone.
33 When I have to work on a group project, I first want to (a) have "group brainstorming"
where everyone contributes ideas or (b) brainstorm individually and then come together as a
group to compare ideas.
37 I am more likely to be considered (a) outgoing or (b) reserved.
41 The idea of doing homework in groups, with one grade for the entire group (a) appeals to
me or (b) does not appeal to me.


2 6


* (a)certainity
* (b)creativty


14 18 22 26 30 34 38


corresponding survey question


Figure 4-13. Undergraduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity.










35
30
25-
20- m ((a)certainty
15- (b)creatikity

5-
10 k


2 6 14 18 22 26 30 34 38
corresponding survey question

Figure 4-14. Graduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity.



Table 4-4. Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity.
Corresponding Survey Questions
2 I would rather be considered (a) realistic or (b) innovative.
6 If I were a teacher, I would rather teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life
situations or (b) that deals with ideas and theories.
14 In reading nonfiction, I prefer (a) something that teaches me new facts or tells me how to do
something or (b) something that gives me new ideas to think about.
18 I prefer the idea of (a) certainty or (b) theory.
22 I am more likely to be considered (a) careful about the details of my work or (b) creative
about how to do my work.
26 When I am reading for enjoyment, I like writers to (a) clearly say what they mean or (b) say
things to in creative, interesting ways.
30 When I have to perform a task, I prefer to (a) master one way of doing it or (b) come up
with new ways of doing it.
34 I consider it higher praise to call someone (a) sensible or (b) imaginative.
38 I prefer courses that emphasize (a) concrete materials (facts, data) or (b) abstract materials
(concepts, theories).









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results discussed in Chapter 4 reveal the present level of use of specific technologies

and the desired learning style of today's students. The following are the conclusions drawn from

these results and some recommendations for related studies.

Conclusions

Technology Assessment

Each hypothesis is followed by a discussion of the finding's relationship to education and

the construction industry.

* HYPOTHESIS 1: Students regardless of academic classification seldom use 4D and nD-
CAD technologies.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True. 50% of students report using 4D and nD-CAD "rarely" or
"never" (Figure 4.1).
* GRADUATES. True. 78% of students report using 4D and nD-CAD "rarely" or "never"
(Figure 4.2).
* BIM products are increasing in popularity industry wide. Graduates are more familiar with
such software than undergraduates. The higher level of familiarity may be due to the
students' undergraduate degree or work experience.

* HYPOTHESIS 2. Students regardless of academic classification frequently use social
networks.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True. 97% of students surveyed report using social networks "often
or "very often." (Figure 4.3)
* GRADUATES. True. 78% of students surveyed report using social networks "often or "very
often" (Figure 4.4).
* Students are comfortable with this technology. Both groups exhibit high levels of use. It
serves as an informal method of communication, but has few direct applications in the
construction industry. Consider introducing a school-based social networking site for
students improved student communication.

* HYPOTHESIS 3. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use online forums.
* UNDERGRADUATES. False. 64.7% of students surveyed report using online forums
"occasionally," "rarely," or "never" (Figure 4.3).
* GRADUATES. False. 56.1% of students surveyed report using online forums "occasionally,"
"rarely," or "never" (Figure 4.4).
* Increased use of this application in education may increase comfort levels. Implementing
online forums in hybrid learning environments may increase the level of student









interaction and simulate face-to-face interaction. Some construction companies, such as
DPR Construction, Inc., currently use wiki as a quick reference for construction issues.

* HYPOTHESIS 4. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use web/video
conferencing.
* UNDERGRADUATES. False. 64.7% of students surveyed report using web/video
conferences "occasionally," "rarely," or "never" (Figure 4.3).
* GRADUATES. False. 85.4% of students surveyed report using web/video conferences
"occasionally," "rarely," or "never" (Figure 4.4).
* Increased use of web/video conferences could give students more access to virtual site
visits or simply allow them to view lectures from home. The same is true for the industry.
Off site management could view their project's progress and attend site meetings from the
main office or from their home.

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire

Each hypothesis is followed by a statement that serves to relate the characteristic to

construction experience.

* HYPOTHESIS 5. The student population regardless of academic classification favors
graphic over textual presentation.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-5).
* GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-6).
* Good graphic communication skills are helpful when reading plans and shop drawings.

* HYPOTHESIS 6. The student regardless of academic classification favors learning details
over concepts.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-7).
* GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-8).
* Construction is a detail-oriented subject. It is likely that students with this learning style
are drawn to this field of study.

* HYPOTHESIS 7. The student population regardless of academic classification favors group
over individualized learning environments.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-9).
* GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-10).
* Comfort in group situations is helpful when managing people.

* HYPOTHESIS 8. The student population regardless of academic classification favors
certainty over creativity.
* UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-11).
* GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-12).
* Construction documents offer specific, precise direction.









The conclusions drawn from the Index of Learning Questionnaire characterized

undergraduate and graduate students differently. Instructors teaching a similar curriculum

should keep these differing qualities in mind when designing lesson plans and presenting new

information.



Recommendations for Related Study

Survey Recommendations

If using the same survey on a different population is desired, it is recommended that the

survey be revisited and the following considerations be taken:

Technology assessment: Part A. Remove the Aware (Y/N) column. Inclusion confuses

participants. Depending on the population, consider removing the first tier subgroups, such as

"basic hardware." It can be assumed that college-level participants have daily exposure to such

technologies. Consider adding a column to measure student's interest in the different

technologies. Eliminate outdated technologies from survey.

Technology assessment: Part B. Eliminate "understanding" column. Assume that

experience and understanding are somewhat related. Including both is redundant. This will

shorten survey and lessen confusion, resulting in more reliable responses. Review statements

and select those that seem most relevant to the problem you are trying to solve.

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire. No changes recommended.

General. To prevent students from arbitrarily answering in order to complete the survey

sooner, shorten the survey to increase its legitimacy.









Additional Studies

Administer the survey to architecture students and building construction students.

Analyze the results to see if there are any differences or similarities in learning styles. This

could be a good indicator of what field the student may excel in.

Administer this survey to a different college and compare the results. Additionally,

consider comparing the results of this study to the survey author's results. Survey instructors to

find their level of technology skills and method of lesson delivery. Determine whether they are

consistent with students' preferences. Lastly, survey the freshmen class. During the survey

group's last year of study, administer the survey again to determine the level of progress made.



Closing Remarks

The construction industry relies on open and efficient communication. Applications that

simplify the flow of information are welcomed additions to the industry. If the next generation

of constructors is comfortable with such applications, so long as technology can improve

efficiency, it is likely its influence will only increase. The use of technology inside and outside

of the classroom exposes students to the available technologies while providing communication

methods that satisfy the learning preferences of all students.









APPENDIX
SURVEY

Technology Skill Assessment Survey
CI-TEAM Project University of Texas IRB Protocol #2006-07-0091

Instructions:

The purpose of this instrument is to assess the level of technology knowledge and skills of civil
engineering students and construction professionals. You will be asked to provide your UTEID.
This is used purely to classify participants' background and is not linked to any of your UT
profile or record. You may choose to not answer any questions.

There are two parts to this questionnaire. The first part is basic demographic and background
information. The second part is the technology skill assessment. Please record how much time it
took you to complete both sessions. We would like to know if the length of the survey is
appropriate.

The data gathered in this study will be reviewed by Kathy Schmidt, Director of the College's
Faculty Innovation Center. Should you have concerns please contact the Office of Research
Support and Compliance at 471-8871.

UTEID









Demographic and Background Information
Age group:
D 18-25
D 25-35
D 35-45
D Over 45

Current academic standing:
D Not in college
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
D Senior
D Graduate school







Targeted job location after graduation:
F- USA
D Others


Gender:
D Male
D Female


Current academic major area (be
specific; if not yet have a major please
specify intended major):
E Structural Engineering
D CEM/CEPM
E Geotechnical Engineering
Environmental & Water
Resources Engineering
Architectural Engineering
D Transportation Engineering
D Building Construction
Architecture
E Other (please specify):


How many years of construction work
experience do you have?
D None
D Less than 2 years
2 to 5 years
More than 5 years


Current or intended (after graduation) work
area:
D Management (executives)
D Support (technical, estimating, sales,
accounting, etc.)
Supervision (foremen and
superintendents)
D Labor (skilled and unskilled)
] Other (please specify):


English proficiency

No skill
Limited
Sufficient
Fluent
Proficient


Oral Written
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D










Technology Skill Assessment
PART A
Please indicate whether or not you are aware of the following groups of technologies (such as
Basic hardware or Office document tools) by a Yes or No, and your level of use for each group.
The examples of tools for each group are listed for explanation only, not as a check list. You are
to indicate your awareness and rate your level of use for each of the whole groups in general, not
for each of the individual tools listed.
1 Never
2 Rarely (a few times a year) 4 Often (weekly basis)
3 Occasionally (once or twice a month) 5 Very often (daily basis)

Aware Level of Use
Group Technology (Y/N) 1 2 3 4 5

SBasic hardware (computers, printers, fax machines, scanners, w E E E
i digital cameras, projectors)
SHandheld devices (labtop, tabletPCs, PDAs, cell phones,
S pagers, iPhones, iPods)
W Sensing technologies (RFID, sensors) E- E E-
Office document tools (word processors, spreadsheets, E- E- H-
presentations)
w Graphic and web design tools (Photoshop, Paintbrush, -
SFireworks, CorelDraw, FrontPage, DreamWeaver)
; 0 Email and Time/Task management tools (MS Outlook,
0 desktop organizers)
Knowledge and Data management tools (MS Access, -- -
EndNote)
r Structural & Architectural design tools (SAP2000, ADINA,
S STAAD-Pro, ArchiCAD)
S 2D- & 3D-CAD (AutoCAD, AutoDesk, MicroStation) H- H H H H
SUI 4D- and nD-CAD (Design + Schedule + Cost/Others) H H H 0 0
Email & Instant messaging (Yahoo Messenger, AOL, MSN) 0H H 0 H0
S Search engines (Google, Yahoo) -0 0- 0
mm Social networks (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedlN) H H H 0 0
C Online forums/Wikis/Blogs H H H 0
SH Web/Video conferences (Webinar) D 0- 0 H 0
Electronic Resources (online publications, online libraries, H- -
YouTube)









PART B
The statements in the table on the next pages describe how different technologies can be used in
certain contexts to promote learning or improve work proficiency. For each of these statements,
please rate the relevance of the usage described in that topic to you (including your work and
personal/social life), your level of understanding about the usage, and the experience you have
with such usage. When giving these scores, please think about technology in general that
includes the groups of tools listed on page 3. Feel free to refer to the list of technologies on page
3 should you need to be reminded.
Degree of Topic Relevance: 1 Not at all
2 Somewhat
3 Relevant
4 Very
5 Extremely
The word "relevance" conveys the relative importance of the question to you, the student.
Relevance, then, should be rated based on an individual's view of its importance to their
knowledge. For example, not knowing how to set certain options in a Web browser may have
little relevance to you because you do not perceive such knowledge as important.
My Level of Topic Understanding: 1 No
2 Limited
3 General
4 Competent
5 Expert
The word "understanding" relates to a student's comprehension of the science and/or functions
of a technology (how it works, what it does). You should rate these questions solely based on
your understanding. For example, you may identify a technology/skill/issue of low relevance, but
still have a high understanding of the technology.
My Level of Topic Experience: 1 None
2 Little
3 Moderate
4 Considerable
5 Extensive
You should rate experience based on your uses of a technology. The level of experience may
differ based on each question in this Arc. You may have high experience (used a technology a lot
for example), but you may not have a high understanding of the technology, and may or may not
see relevance or importance to such knowledge. In contrast, you might understand a technology
very well (how radio wave transmission works) but do not have much direct experience of using
it.

# Statement Relevance Understanding Experience
1 I use technology to keep up with course requirements
and assignments, such as word processing, spreadsheets,
email, online document sharing tools, and basic software
programs.
2 I use email, instant messenger, social networks or other
technology to communication with faculty and other
students in and outside of class.









# Statement Relevance Understanding Experience
3 When doing group work, I am aware of and using
technology-enhanced collaborating tools such as email,
instant messengers, online forums, blogs, wikis,
web/video conferences.
4 Technology has great potential for helping me
performing intellectual activities that promote learning
far beyond traditional lectures, such as interactive self-
guided learning programs, role-play programs, or online
teamwork environments.
5 I use some technology for my active learning, such as
email discussions, forum discussions, using software for
simulation or visualization.
6 I am aware that an individual's attitude/preference
toward a certain technology depends on several factors:
technical, psychological, social, and economic. What is
best for me might not be the best tool for my colleagues.
7 I am tolerant to these individual differences.
8 I use technology when it is more beneficial than other
methods, for example: spreadsheets are useful for
repetitive calculations but taking notes on paper might
be easier than on a laptop when walking around.
9 I am aware of the fact that every technology has its
limitations, social as well as economic constraints.
10 I use email, pager/cell phone and other media to
complement, not to replace face-to-face communication
and enhance overall effectiveness of communication
since each method has its own strengths and
weaknesses.
11 I am flexible and respectful of others' needs, perception
and habit of e-communication.
12 I try to understand the psychological, technical, and
social conditions as well as individual needs when
working collaboratively using technology so that mutual
respect and understanding is in place.
13 Simulated activities with technology might not have the
full power of human interaction, but they avoid negative
human influences such as emotions and tension, and I
can learn with technology comfortably.
14 I know what aspects) of technology (technical,
psychological, social, economic) is most important to
me and how they affect one another in my willingness to
use it.









# Statement Relevance Understanding Experience
15 I am willing to learn about a new technology and change
my current attitude in light of new knowledge.
16 The creative ways I can complete class exercises and
assignments require both paper and electronic-based
products.
17 By using technology, I learn new things beyond the
requirements or scope of the assignment I am doing (use
search engines to explore a topic, automate a solution in
a computer program for trend analysis).
18 I am able to act comfortably in both synchronized and
synchronized communication (such as, being patient
when emails are not responded to promptly, being able
to process and exchange information in a distributed
manner instead of a continuous and intensive process in
a face-to-face dialogue).
19 In face-to-face interaction, I can use technology as an
agent of trust to enhance clarity and reduce confusion in
expressing ideas and conveying messages (for example:
use a PowerPoint presentation for brainstorming, use a
projector to show ideas being documented, etc.)
20 I am willing to expose myself, confront with the lack of
natural human interaction, and share my knowledge with
others when working in an online environment (such as
email, forum, etc/.)
21 Sometimes we need a break from technology and work
directly with each other as human interaction cannot be
replaced altogether by technology. I know how to keep
this balance.
22 I become more accepting and tolerant to others' opinion
when working from a distance as I understand the nature
of synchronized communication (both in time and
space).
23 I find active learning most effective when involving both
technology and humans. I know when I should and when
I should not use technology for activities such as role
playing, self reflection, discussions, etc.
24 I can overcome psychological frustration when
something goes wrong with a technology and focus on
the technical features to solve the problem.
25 I am interested in using technology to improve not only
my work but also my personal and social life.
26 I understand technology to the point where I don't









# Statement Relevance Understanding Experience
always trust the products of a computer program. I
understand that under certain circumstances the
technology can go wrong, and I can normally tell when
this happens. If it does, I normally know how to move
forward.
27 I am sensible to others' need to express ideas, to build
self-esteem, or recognition.
28 I am able to give and receive constructive criticisms
through non-face-to-face communication (I know how to
react to different opinions when using online discussion
forums).
29 I am able to relieve tension when miscommunication
occurs.
30 I take advantage of cyberspace's capability of storing
and exchanging a great amount of information to better
react to urgent problems, define clearer scope of work,
centralize individual efforts, and keep track of group's
progress.
31 With the help of technology, I consistently and
comfortably change the focus from group benefits to
individual benefits when needed to ensure both
individual and group goals are achieved (for example:
when working on a group assignment via email, I know
how to address an individual's concern so that he/she
knows that his/her voice did not go unnoticed.)
32 If I use technology, I know when it is too overwhelming
and forces me to spend time on figuring out how to use
it, instead of my thinking about what I am doing. I can
get myself out of that trap and adjust the way I approach
the technology to make sure it is being used as a tool for
me to learn.
33 I am aware that technology is changing fast, but I am
willing to invest my time and other resources in trying
out new things.
34 I am determined to exploit technology to enhance my
life-long learning.
35 I can use technology in a creative way to solve my
problems or do my tasks, not only using the most
obvious or common features for typical tasks.
Sometimes I even try to use it for things it has not been
designed for primarily.









# Statement Relevance Understanding Experience
36 As I perform my task using technology, I think about the
process I am going through and how specific features
relate to the higher level system, and I am normally able
to understand more abstract and generic concepts
beyond the specific task at hand.
37 I can use various media to communicate for effective
collaboration and mutual understanding (email, instant
message, web-based forums, cell phones, presentation
software, meetings, wiki, etc.)
38 I am able to deal with dominance and power in groups
when interacting in a medium other than face-to-face.
39 I am willing to invest time and effort to help others
learn/achieve their goals because I also learn a lot from
that.
40 Technology is very helpful tool to share your knowledge
with others, and to make any resources better accessible
for individual and group learning.
41 Learning with technology motivates me to explore more
about a topic beyond the current requirements.
42 Learning with technology helps me develop the ability to
better define the ultimate learning objectives, and carry
out the learning activities without extensive instructions.


Time taken to complete this survey:









Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire


(Copyright Barbara A. Soloman & Richard M. Felder, North Carolina State University)

ID

Directions
This questionnaire is designed to identify your preferred style (styles) of learning. For each of the
44 questions below select either "a" or "b" to indicate your answer. Please choose only one
answer for each question. If both "a" and "b" seem to apply to you, choose the one that applies
more frequently.

1 I understand something better after I
D (a) try it out.
D (b) think it through.

2 I would rather be considered
D (a) realistic.
1 (b) innovative.

3 When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most likely to get
D (a) a picture.
1 (b) words.

4 I tend to
D (a) understand details of a subject but may be fuzzy about its overall structure.
(b) understand the overall structure but may be fuzzy about details.

5 When I am learning something new, it helps me to
D (a) talk about it.
D (b) think about it.

6 I were a teacher, I would rather teach a course
D (a) that deals with facts and real life situations.
(b) that deals with ideas and theories.

7 I prefer to get new information in
[ (a) pictures, diagrams, graphs, or maps.
(b) written directions or verbal information.

8 Once I understand
D (a) all the parts, I understand the whole thing.
1 (b) the whole thing, I see how the parts fit.
9 In a study group working on difficult material, I am more likely to
D (a) jump in and contribute ideas.
D (b) sit back and listen.








10 I find it easier
(a) to learn facts.
(b) to learn concepts.
11 In a book with lots of pictures and charts, I am likely to
D (a) look over the pictures and charts carefully.
(b) focus on the written text.

12 When I solve math problems
D (a) I usually work my way to the solutions one step at a time.
(b) I often just see the solutions but then have to struggle to figure out the steps to get
to them.
13 In classes I have taken
D (a) I have usually gotten to know many of the students.
(b) I have rarely gotten to know many of the students.

14 In reading nonfiction, I prefer
D (a) something that teaches me new facts or tells me how to do something.
(b) something that gives me new ideas to think about.
15 I like teachers
D (a) who put a lot of diagrams on the board.
D (b) who spend a lot of time explaining.
16 When I'm analyzing a story or a novel
(a) I think of the incidents and try to put them together to figure out the themes.
D (b) I just know what the themes are when I finish reading and then I have to go back
and find the incidents that demonstrate them.
17 When I start a homework problem, I am more likely to
(a) start working on the solution immediately.
D (b) try to fully understand the problem first.
18 I prefer the idea of
(a) certainty.
D (b) theory.
19 I remember best
D (a) what I see.
D (b) what I hear.
20 It is more important to me that an instructor
D (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps.
D (b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other subjects.
21 I prefer to study
D (a) in a study group.
D (b) alone.
22 I am more likely to be considered
(a) careful about the details of my work.
D (b) creative about how to do my work.
23 When I get directions to a new place, I prefer
(a) a map.
(b) written instructions.








24 I learn
(a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, I'll "get it."
(b) in fits and starts. I'll be totally confused and then suddenly it all "clicks."

25 I would rather first
(a) try things out.
(b) think about how I'm going to do it.

26 When I am reading for enjoyment, I like writers to
(a) clearly say what they mean.
(b) say things in creative, interesting ways.

27 When I see a diagram or sketch in class, I am most likely to remember
(a) the picture.
(b) what the instructor said about it.

28 When considering a body of information, I am more likely to
(a) focus on details and miss the big picture.
(b) try to understand the big picture before getting into the details.

29 I more easily remember
(a) something I have done.
(b) something I have thought a lot about.

30 When I have to perform a task, I prefer to
(a) master one way of doing it.
(b) come up with new ways of doing it.
31 When someone is showing me data, I prefer
[ (a) charts or graphs.
(b) text summarizing the results.

32 When writing a paper, I am more likely to
(a) work on (think about or write) the beginning of the paper and progress forward.
(b) work on (think about or write) different parts of the paper and then order them.

33 When I have to work on a group project, I first want to
[ (a) have "group brainstorming" where everyone contributes ideas.
(b) brainstorm individually and then come together as a group to compare ideas.

34 I consider it higher praise to call someone
(a) sensible.
(b) imaginative.

35 When I meet people at a party, I am more likely to remember
(a) what they looked like.
(b) what they said about themselves.








36 When I am learning a new subject, I prefer to
D (a) stay focused on that subject, learning as much about it as I can.
D (b) try to make connections between that subject and related subjects.

37 I am more likely to be considered
E (a) outgoing.
D (b) reserved.

38 I prefer courses that emphasize
D (a) concrete material (facts, data).
(b) abstract material (concepts, theories).

39 For entertainment, I would rather
(a) watch television.
D (b) read a book.

40 Some teachers start their lectures with an outline of what they will cover. Such outlines are
(a) somewhat helpful to me.
(b) very helpful to me.

41 The idea of doing homework in groups, with one grade for the entire group,
E (a) appeals to me.
E (b) does not appeal to me.

42 When I am doing long calculations,
(a) I tend to repeat all my steps and check my work carefully.
(b) I find checking my work tiresome and have to force myself to do it.

43 I tend to picture places I have been
(a) easily and fairly accurately.
(b) with difficulty and without much detail.
44 When solving problems in a group, I would be more likely to
(a) think of the steps in the solution process.
(b) think of possible consequences or applications of the solution in a wide range of
areas.

Thank you for your participation!









LIST OF REFERENCES


Adrian, James A. (2004). Construction Productivity: Measurement and Improvement, Stiples,
Champaign, IL.

Al-Musallam, Abed Abdullah (2002) A Web-based approach for coordinating architectural
drawings with other construction documents. Ph.D. dissertation, Illinois Institute of
Technology, United States -- Illinois. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital
Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3070932).

Apple Computer, Inc. (2008, February 11) ITunes U and Mobile Learning. Retrieved February
11, 2008, from http://www.apple.com/education/itunesu_mobilelearning/itunesu.html.

Autodesk. (2008, February 12) Autodesk Constructware. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=6871224&sitelD=123112.

Bricsnet. (2008, February 12) Project Center: Benefits. Retrieved February 13, 2008), from
http://bricsnet.com/html/projectcenterbenefits.htm.

Charalambides, Jason Evelthon (2004) Computer method for the generation of the geometry of
tensegrity structures. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States
-- Texas. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(Publication No. AAT 3143665).

Coyle, James E., Jr. (2007) Wikis in the college classroom: A comparative study of online and
face-to-face group collaboration at a private liberal arts university. Ph.D. dissertation,
Kent State University, United States -- Ohio. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from ProQuest
Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3263183).

Dorji, Ugyen (2001) The National Architectural Training and Building Research Centre in
Bhutan. M.E.Des. dissertation, University of Calgary (Canada), Canada. Retrieved
February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT
MQ66929).

E-Builder. (2008, February 12) Product Highlights. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from
http://www.e-builder.net/products/collaborator.html.

EraBuild (2006). "Review of the current state of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Technology, its use and potential future use in Construction." EraBuild,
http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/research/ERABUILD RFID.pdf (Mar. 5, 2008).

National BIM Standard. (2008, February 11) Welcome to NBIMS. Retrieved February 12, 2008
from http://facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/index.php.

Ostle, B. and Malone, L. (1988) Statistics in research, 4th. Ed, Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa.









Purdue University Emerging Construction Technologies. (2008, February 10). ProjectCenter.
Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/ECT/Internet/projectcenter.aspx.

Shaurette, Mark (2007) Assessment of webcam technology on teaching and learning in
construction management education. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, United States
-- Indiana. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(Publication No. AAT 3278688).

Teizer, Jochen (2006) Real-time spatial modeling to detect and track resources on construction
sites. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, United States -- Texas.
Retrieved March 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication
No. AAT 3267849).

Whiteside, Aimee Lynn (2007) Exploring social presence in communities of practice within a
hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal examination of two case studies within the
School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Minnesota, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from
ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3275052).









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Amanda A. Manthorne began her college education at the University of Florida in 2001.

Studying architecture, she spent her last design studio on Nantucket Island in a school-sponsored

summer program. Upon receiving her Bachelor of Design, majoring in architecture in the spring

of 2006, she interned at an Orlando-based architecture firm during the summer. She began her

graduate education in August 2006 at the Rinker School of Building Construction at the

University of Florida. After completion of her first year of study, she participated in a summer

internship program with a San Francisco, CA general contractor. It was here that she became a

LEED Accredited Professional. Amanda finished her graduate degree in August of 2008 and

began working for a development group in Chicago, IL.





PAGE 1

TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STUDENTS By AMANDA A. MANTHORNE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Amanda A. Manthorne 2

PAGE 3

To my parents, Dennis and Veronica, for th eir patience, continued love and unwavering confidence in my abilities 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. R. Raymond Issa for his subject o ffering and data analysis assistance. I thank Dr. Svetlana Olbina for the opportunity to assist in her Graphics Comm unication course and Dr. Esther Obonyo for the presentation of new tec hnologies in her Methods Improvement course. I thank all of my committee members for their recommendations in bettering this thesis. I thank Dr. Leon Wetherington for allowing me to issue my survey to his students and Dr. Robert Stroh for his data analysis assistance. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .12 Background.............................................................................................................................12 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .12 Purpose of Study.....................................................................................................................13 Hypotheses..............................................................................................................................13 Technology Assessment..................................................................................................13 Index Learning Styles Questionnaire..............................................................................13 Significance of Study..............................................................................................................13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........15 Construction Technology........................................................................................................16 Web Based Coordination...............................................................................................16 Building Information Modeling......................................................................................17 Web-Cam Usage..............................................................................................................19 Hybrid Learning Environment........................................................................................20 Sensing Technologies......................................................................................................21 Wikis................................................................................................................................21 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................2 2 Purpose...................................................................................................................................22 Design of Study......................................................................................................................22 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................24 Meeting Attendance and Course Assistance...........................................................................24 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........26 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........26 Sample Demographics............................................................................................................26 Undergraduate.................................................................................................................26 Graduate....................................................................................................................... ...26 Technology Skills Assessment...............................................................................................27 Domain Specific Tools....................................................................................................27 5

PAGE 6

Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................28 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................28 Chi-squared test: Domain specific tools...................................................................28 Web-Based Tools............................................................................................................29 Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................29 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................29 Chi-squared test: Web-based tools...........................................................................30 Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire.................................................................................30 Graphics or Text..............................................................................................................3 1 Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................31 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................31 Details or Concepts..........................................................................................................32 Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................32 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................32 Group or Individual.........................................................................................................33 Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................33 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................34 Certainty or Creativity.....................................................................................................34 Undergraduate sample..............................................................................................34 Graduate sample.......................................................................................................35 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ...35 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................45 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................45 Technology Assessment..................................................................................................45 Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire..........................................................................46 Recommendations for Related Study.....................................................................................47 Survey Recommendations...............................................................................................47 Additional Studies...........................................................................................................48 Closing Remarks.....................................................................................................................48 APPENDIX SURVEY..............................................................................................................49 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................61 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................63 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Demographic Survey Results, Undergraduate Work Experience......................................37 4-2 Demographic Survey Results, Graduate Work Experience...............................................37 4-3 Part A Survey Results, Domain Sp ecific Tools: Undergraduate Students........................37 4-4 Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Graduate Students.................................38 4-5 Part A Survey Results, Web-Base d Tools: Undergraduate Students.................................38 4-6 Part A Survey Results, Web-Ba sed Tools: Graduate Students..........................................39 4-7 Undergraduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text..............................................................39 4-8 Graduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text.......................................................................40 4-9 Undergraduate Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts........................................................41 4-10 Graduate Learning Styl e: Detail vs. Concept....................................................................41 4-11 Undergraduate Learning St yle: Group vs. Individual........................................................42 4-12 Graduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.................................................................43 4-13 Undergraduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity....................................................43 4-14 Graduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity.............................................................44 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text.......................................................................................40 4-2 Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts.................................................................................42 4-3 Learning Style: Group vs. Individual.................................................................................43 4-4 Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity............................................................................44 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABRC Architecture and Building Research Center BIM building information modeling CAD computer aided drafting NTTA National Technical Training Authority PDA personal digital assistant RFID Radio Frequency Identification UF-ITAC University of Florida Information Technology Council 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction TECHNOLOGY SKILLS AND LEARNING STYLE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STUDENTS By Amanda A. Manthorne August 2008 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Cochair: Svetlana Olbina Major: Building Construction The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether th e benefits of technology are being realized and a ppropriately presented in construction education. The purpose of this thesis was to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of certain technologies and (2) discern a learning style typical of buildi ng construction students. The goa l of this study is to identify technology-related deficiencies a nd formulate an efficient method of lesson delivery relevant to the classroom and the industry. A technology skills assessment and learning styl e questionnaire were administered to two groups: undergraduate (34 students) and graduate students (41 stude nts). The data was entered into a spreadsheet and an alyzed using statistical tools. Th e technology skill assessment focused on the students awareness and le vel of use of domain specific tools (AutoCAD, BIM) and webbased tools (social networks, online forums, etc.). Relationships between the two samples were tested using the Chi-squared test at a 95% level of confidence. Th e results of the two samples in were significantly different in regard to 2D a nd 3D-CAD, web/video conferences, and electronic resources. No significant di fference was found in regard to 4D-CAD, social networks, and online forums. The learning styles among underg raduate and graduate students differ. Instructors should tailor their lesson delivery to students preferences. 10

PAGE 11

Presently, students have a low level of awar eness and use of technologies such as 4DCAD, web/video conferences, a nd electronic resources. Effective classroom delivery and implementation of these technologies in the clas sroom will produce better prepared students who will influence positive change w ithin the construction industry. 11

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Improvements in technology have resulted in eco nomic gain due to pr oductivity increases for many industries; however, while the U .S. economy has been increasing its annual productivity at a rate of close to 3%, the construction industry has averaged an annual increase of less then 1% (Adrian 2004). Ad rian suggests that a lack of re search and development within construction firms, in addition to a number of other reasons, may be a factor. Implementing new construction methods and manageme nt techniques could positively affect productivity levels. It is estimated that 3% of a field laborers non-productive time can be attributed to the punch list, 5% to late or inaccurate information, and 2% to redo work (Adrian 2004). This total idle time of 10% results in a lo ss of productivity that could be reduced if the right technologies were implemented. The application of the right technology can improve the level of communication and planning, benefiting all project stakeholders. Familiarity with the late st technologies is an important char acteristic in gaining success in the construction industry. The willingness to learn and use this technology benefits both students and industry professionals. When introducing new technologies, a tailored lesson delivery that coincides with students preferen ces will benefit students, instru ctors, and eventually, industry. Statement of the Problem The research question that this study seeks to answer is whether th e benefits of technology are being realized and a ppropriately presented in construction education. The survey shown in The Appendix was used to collect data from two groups of students. The groups were first semester junior undergraduate students a nd newly enrolled graduate students. 12

PAGE 13

Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to first assess the level of familiarity and use of certain technologies among building construc tion students at the University of Florida. Secondly, this study is intended to discern a lear ning style typical of the populat ion to aid instructors in their method of lesson delivery. Comparative analysis will be performed among two sample groups of Rinker School students, first semester undergra duate and newly enrolled graduate students. Conclusions will be drawn from results compile d from the administered survey (Appendix). Hypotheses The following hypotheses are presented below in the order in which their corresponding statements appear on the survey (Appendix). The hypotheses apply to the undergraduate and graduate student samples: Technology Assessment HYPOTHESIS 1. Students regardless of academic cl assification seldom use 4D and nDCAD technologies. HYPOTHESIS 2. Students regardless of academic classification frequently use social networks HYPOTHESIS 3. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use online forums HYPOTHESIS 4. Students regardless of academic cl assification seldom use web/video conferencing. Index Learning Styles Questionnaire HYPOTHESIS 5. The student population regardless of academic classification favors graphic over textual presentation. HYPOTHESIS 6. The student population regardless of academic classification favors learning details over concepts. HYPOTHESIS 7. The student population regardless of academic classification favors group over individualized learning environment s HYPOTHESIS 8. The student population regardless of academic classification favors certainty over creativity. Significance of Study The findings of this study will benefit the co nstruction industry at all levelsstudents, instructors, and professionals. St udents level of use of different technologies will be measured 13

PAGE 14

and used to improve course content and lesson delivery. Technological de ficiencies related to specific technologies can be iden tified and reduced by the inclusion of those topics into the curriculum. The construction industry benefits from the assessment of the level of technological knowledge among students. Curricula and lesson deliv ery changes made as a result of this study will produce graduates who are better prepar ed to deal with future issues. 14

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Familiarizing the student with the latest technol ogy in their field better prepares them for their career following completion of their degree. Technologi cally-aware employees force industry to adapt to improved methods. By applying technologies currently taught in the classroom, the construction industry can achie ve increased levels of efficiency. Adrian (2004) highlights the following four areas where technology improvements positively affect productivity: Reducing tedious, time consuming, and inaccurate project paper work that characterizes the construction process. Enabling of the collection of new informati on that should enable improved measurement of productivity such that corre ctions can be made and benc hmarking can be performed. Improving project design documents to reduce or eliminate productivity delays related to errors or omissions. Aid in integrating the project owner, designer, and construc tor into a team to improve communication and information transfer. Oftentimes, an on-site supervis or spends much of their time recording data or keeping records. This leaves less time for them to a ttend to their primary rolesupervising construction in the field. With increased interest in technol ogy both at the university and industry level, these inefficiencies will become less prevalent. The c onstruction industry is in the early stages of a profound revolution in jobsite technology that will likely change the industry more in the next ten years than any other time in history (Adr ian 2004). The following section discusses a few of these technologies, their benefits, and applications. 15

PAGE 16

Construction Technology Web Based Coordination According to Purdue University 2% of project cost is simply paperwork, $500mil/year is spent on FedEx(US) and no group has more than 65% of the project record at project close ( http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/ECT/Internet/projectcenter.aspx ). Many companies have developed software to remedy these reoccurri ng, communication-related, issues. Autodesk Constructware is a web-based appl ication that reduces the inherent risks associated with complex projects by merging object s essential to that pr oject into one, projectbased database. This allows for clear co mmunication among all project stakeholders. Immediate access to information, a centralized database that mi nimizes the need for multiple logins, numerous workflow process improvements, a nd file management are some of the benefits touted on the Autodesk Constructware website http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/se rvlet/index?id=6871224&siteID=123112 These benefits are realized by increased accountability, improve d risk management and reduced costs. Bricsnets ProjectCenter offers features sim ilar to Autodesk Constructware. There is no software to load, nor any hardware to manage. Bricsnet claims th at training is simple and that their product is a proven money-save r; ProjectCenter clients repor t savings of as much as 50% on printing, copying and shipping, as well as savings of 20% or more on travel ( http://bricsnet.com/html/p rojectcenterbenefits.htm ). Yet another option is Meridian Project Systems Inc.s Prolog Web-based project management software. It is also an internet based collaboration application. Prolog allows the user to monitor the project from anywhere at anytime, facilitating real time communication among team members. 16

PAGE 17

Lastly, e-Builder offers a competing collabora tion system. The e-Builder Collaborator for Construction Management streamlines the colla boration process, redu ces risk and improves efficiency. Additionally, the product claims to eliminate the high costs associated with bid distribution, mitigate risk by automating the mana gement and tracking of change orders, and organize the construction schedule online using shared calendar capabilities ( http://www.ebuilder.net/products/collaborator.html ). Al-Musallam (2002) proposes a web-based coordi nation system in his study that addresses the following three factors and conditions: Each member of the construction team may need different information about the same building component or element The drawings are the important key information source to start the process of searching for information element. The importance of integrating and coordinating the drawings with all other construction documents at the building components level. Al-Musallams proposed system achieves th e above by linking building components on the drawings to their corresponding documents, such as specifications, schedules, codes/standards and details, etc. The software described is si milar to the current web-based options described previously in this chapter and seems to be a precursor for the most recent technological development, building information modeling (BIM). Building Information Modeling The purpose for using BIM is to mitigate loss by way of avoidance from early detection, mitigation of unnecessary repetition, eliminating delay and decommissioning costs/losses. The Facility Information Council provides an indus try-wide forum for the standardization and integration of construction -related computer software The councils website ( http://facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/index.php ) believes that building information models 17

PAGE 18

are an important method for reducing the cost of construction, from incep tion to closeout. The council believes the current cons truction process is inefficient, costing more and requiring too much time to deliver ( http://facilityinforma tioncouncil.org/bim/index.php ). This is due to the great amount of coordination from all of the building stakeholders. The benefits of building information mode ling (BIM) are currently being felt in the construction industry and in the educational syst em. Referred to as tensegrity, BIM is a technology that can be applied to structures that can influence th e construction time efficiency and construction project management in genera l (Charalambides 2004). Charalambides notes that the complexity of structures being built ma y be to blame for the slow inclusion of this technology by architects and engineers. It is widely believed that greater efficiency results from the use of such programs. Outside of the United States, in Bhutan, the not ion of a professionally trained architect is a new concept. There, carpenters and masons we re solely responsible for both the design and construction phases of a project (Dorji 2001). Due to recent advances in the construction industry, this outdated system is slowly being replaced by one more like what is found in the United States. In partnership with the Nati onal Technical Training Authority (NTTA), Dorji (2001) proposed an educationa l center called the Ar chitecture and Building Research Centre (ABRC). The ABRC is divided into two le vels: a Diploma level and a Degree level. Sustainability, as well as an emphasis on building, will be at the core of the program (Dorji 2001). Dorji does not mention the inclusion of 4D-CAD, although the inclusion of this curriculum at the early stages of education w ould subsequently carry over into Bhutans construction industry, putting them at the forefront of building technology, 18

PAGE 19

Web-Cam Usage Hands-on experience in construction allows students, especially those believed to be visual learners, to have a better understanding of building construction. However, making field trips a common curricula feature poses many difficulties. Scheduling visits to construction sites may hinder that projects productivit y, and therefore may be viewed as unfavorable among project administrators. Additionally, this may create sa fety hazards to both students and on-site labor due to distractions. Lastly, logistics are difficult. Professors fi nd it difficult to have all students in attendance when the field trip is in an unfamiliar location or schedu led at an inconvenient time. Shaurette (2007) investigated the use of webcam technology within Purdue Universitys Construction Management Program. Shaurette s uggested that webcam technology could be used as an alternative to the traditi onal field trip, while avoiding th e aforementioned drawbacks. The results of the study concluded that users found webcam file trips to be as good as or better than conventional field trips (Shaur ette 2007). The following is a condensed, summarized list of Webcam Field Trip Best Practices: Field trip coordination should be the res ponsibility of one person. This is a good opportunity for a graduate student. Show as much of the jobsite as possible. Students prefer this method. Provide a field trip outline to field personnel. Also, let them know of any questions the instructor may ask them. This will better prepare them the field trip. Encourage students to ask questions at anytim e during the session. As the instructor, ask few questions, as asking too many ma y discourage student participation. Provide handouts when screen re solution is not adequate. Archive webcam lessons for future use. 19

PAGE 20

Webcam lessons are an effective solution to a llow students to gain on-site experience when site access is difficult. Hybrid Learning Environment The phrase hybrid learning environment refers to a course structure that combines both the traditional face-to -face learning environment and we b-based communication (Whiteside 2007). Most major universities offer this type of learning environment in addition to the traditional on-campus classroom setting or an entirely online format. The University of Florida most recently implemented a hybrid platform known as elearning. This allows a student to correspond with their professors and peers away from campus. At anytime, they can contact each other and th eir instructor with questions and concerns. Additionally, instructors often post assignments, lectures, a nd additional resources for student use. This coordination platform is closely related to those used in the construction industry (as discussed in this chapters web-cased coordi nation section) and is intended to improve communication and coordination deficiencies. Apples ItunesU is a more recent application th at can be used as a component of a hybrid system. Apples ItunesU provide s 24/7 access to educational materi al from top universities, and is accessible using a Mac or a PC. The applica tion offers increased accessibility when compared to applications such as e-learning. ItunesU keeps students motivated by more actively engaging themthe product offers vivid audio and video that increase student interest when compared to traditional printed note pages. This application allows schools to make their academic content public to whomever they choose. Alumni, parent s, and anyone else may have access to course material if the institution chooses. Since the we b is often the first place students go to share ideas, and to perform preliminary research on an unfamiliar subject, ItunesU allows faculty to reach students beyond the traditional classroom sett ing. Not only can instructors upload lectures, 20

PAGE 21

they can enable students to e ngage in experiences specific to their field of study, such as providing convenient access to on-site construction ( http://www.apple.com/education/ itunesu_mobilelearning/itunesu.html ). Sensing Technologies Radio Frequency Identificati on (RFID) is a type of se nsing technology that connects objects to the internet or databases, so their lo cation can be tracked and object-specific data can be accessed centrally. A transponder is placed on the object and a scanner is used to read data off the transponder using radio waves. This technology can be used as a method of quality control in construction by track ing material location and instal lation, providing theft detection, and the correct component and device are implemented (EraBuild 2006). Furthermore, Teizer proposes using 3D m odeling sensing technology as a way to prevent injury and death on a construction site. By rapidly creating a spat ial model of the existing state of the construction site, visu alization and communication ar e improved, and a reduction in human injury and death is realized (Teizer 2006). Wikis A wiki is a blog-like internet based platform th at allows users to edit posted content as they please. The platforms ease of use makes them effective in setting where collaboration is desired, such as distance education. James Coyle st udied the use of wiki in higher education. His study compared both traditional face-to-face coll aboration and web-base d wiki. The findings were generally positive. He found that although students were not comfortable with editing their peers work, and would not do so unless they were officially designated to be the editor, wikis were an effective collaboration method that allowed students to work at their desired pace while still having access to their peers work (Coyle 2007). 21

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purpose The purpose of this study is to (1) assess the level of familiarity and use of specific construction-related technologies an d (2) discern a learning style ty pical of students enrolled in the School of Building Construction. Design of Study Two groups of students enrolled in cour ses within the Rinker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida were asked to complete a survey entitled Technology Skills Assessment Survey (Appendix). One gr oup was composed of 34 undergraduates, first semester students, and the second group was compos ed of 41 first semester, graduate students. The 12-page survey is divided into three sectionsdemographics and background information, a technology skills assessment, and a learning styles questionnaire. The first section collects the demographical data of each survey respondent such as age group, gender, current academic standing, current academic major, targeted job location upon graduation (USA or other), years of work experien ce, current or intended wo rk area, and level of oral and written English proficiency. This inform ation allows the researcher to make accurate comparisons. Section two, the technology skills assessment section, is brok en down further, into two subsections. The first subsection as ks students to indicate whether or not they are aware of the following technology groups: hardware devices, office document tools, domain specific tools, and web-based tools. Each of these groups is then divided into sma ller categories, ordered largely by their date of marketplace entry, of whic h students were asked to respond as to whether 22

PAGE 23

or not they were familiar with the technology and rate their level of use. A Likert scale was used where 1 corresponded with Never, 2 with Rarel y (a few times a year), 3 with Occasionally (once or twice a month), 4 with Often (weekly basis), and 5 w ith Very often (daily basis). Zero (0) indicates the student is not awar e that the technology exists. The group Hardware Devices seeks to gather information in regard to students use and familiarity with basic hardware, handheld devices (iPods, PDAs), and sensing technologies. Office Document Tools seeks to gather information in regard to stude nts use and familiarit y with typical office document tools (word processors, spread sheets, presentations), graphic and web design tools (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, etc.), and Knowledge and Data Management Tools such as MS access and EndNote. For the purpose of this st udy, data is analyzed from the last two subsections: Domain Specific Tools and Web-Based Tools. The subsection Domain Specific Tools is intended to gather more information in regard to structural and architectural design tools, 2D and 3D-CAD (AutoCAD, etc.), and 4D-and nD-CAD (BIM, etc.). The last group, Web-Based Tools gathers information regarding the familiarity and use of email and instant messaging, search engines, social networks, online forums/wikis/blogs, Web/Video conferences, and electronic resources (onlin e publications, YouTube, etc.). The second subsection of the Technology Skills Assessment, Part B, lists 42 technologyrelated statements. These statements describe how different technologies can be used in certain contexts to promote learning or improve work proficiency (Appendix). For each statement, the student is asked to rate the degree of topic rele vance, their level of t opic understanding, and their level of topic experience using a Likert scale. For example, the first statement reads, I use technology to keep up with course requirement s and assignments, such as word processing, spreadsheets, email, online document sharing tool s, and basic software programs (Appendix). 23

PAGE 24

Although the data from this secti on was collected, it was deemed irre levant to the purpose of this study and not analyzed. The final section of the survey is titled I ndex of Learning Styles Questionnaire. This section asks the student 44 questions seeking to identify their preferre d learning method. Each question is phrased as a statement, and the studen t is instructed to res pond by selecting one of the two options- a or b. For example, the firs t question in this section reads I understand something better after I ; the two corresponding response options read (a) try it out and (b) think it through (Appendix). Th e questions are designed to reve al whether the student prefers graphic of textual information delivery, prefers details or conc epts, group or individual learning, and certainty or creativity. Data Analysis The graduate students were surveyed in December 2007 and the undergraduate students were surveyed in the January 2008. Their response s to each query were entered into a MS Excel spreadsheet. This allowed the data from the demographics, Technology Skills Assessment, and Index of Learning Styles Questionna ire sections to be statistica lly analyzed. Questions were analyzed based on their perceived relevance to Building Construction education. Bar graphs were created to graphically illustrate relations hips and tendencies. To compare undergraduate and graduate students, data compiled from the Technology Skills Assessment was further analyzed using Chi-squared tests. Meeting Attendance and Course Assistance The author also attended th ree University of Florida In formation Technology Advisory Council (UF-ITAC) meetings in the spring of 2008. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the implementation of technology that ca n improve the quality of education at the university. These meetings provided the oppor tunity to witness discussion on technology 24

PAGE 25

implementation including distance learning, webcam usage, and ItunesU. Also during the spring 2008 semester, the author assisted students in their AutoCAD laboratory sessions of a Computer and Graphics Communication course taught at the University of Flor ida. It was during this time that the relationship and varyi ng levels of interest and su ccess among students and technology became evident. These experiences are men tioned because it is likely that the exposure influenced the writing of this document. 25

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction This studys intent is to assess the level of technology awareness and use among collegelevel building constructi on students and to determine if a pr evalent learning style exists. As discussed in Chapter 3, each secti on of the survey investigates a di fferent, albeit related, issue. This chapter is organized into three sectio ns: sample demographics, technology skills assessment, and index of learning styles questionnai res. Each of these three sections discusses the results of both sample groups, undergradu ate and graduate students, separately and comparatively. Sample Demographics Undergraduate All students surveyed were in the age group 18-25. Five (14.7%) of the 34 persons surveyed were female. Two (5.8%) of the students were sophomores, thirty (88.2%) are juniors and two are seniors (5.8%). All students intended to work in the United States following their graduation. Five (15 %) of the students surv eyed had no constructi on experience; 23 (67%) reported having less than two year s experience, 12% (4) report two to five years of experience, and the remaining two (6%) had more than 5 year s of construction experience (Figure 4-1). Twenty-six students, or 76.5% of those surveye d, intended to work in management, while one (2.9%) intend to hold support roles, and 14.7% prefer supervision. No students intended to work in the labor area. The entire sample was pr oficient in both spoken and written English. Graduate Twenty-five (61%) of the 41 students survey ed were in the age group 18-25. Fifteen (36.5%) were between the ages of 25 and 35. One person (2.4%) was between the ages of 34 26

PAGE 27

and 45. Nine (22%) of the 41 persons surveyed are female. All students were in there first semester of enrolment in the Rinker School of Building Construction graduate program. All students intended to work in the United States following their graduation. Thirty-seven percent of students surveyed have no construction expe rience, 29% report having less than two years experience, 24% report 2 to 5 y ears, and the remaining 10% (four students) have more than 5 years of construction experience (F igure 4-2). Sixty-five percent of those surveyed intend to work in management, while 13.9% intend to hold support roles, and 18.8% prefer supervision. No students intend to work in the labor area and one student (2.4%) selected other. Thirty-one (75.6%) of the 41 students reported being orally proficient in the English language. Six students believed themselves to be fluent, and the remaining four (9.8%) identified their skill level as sufficient. Similarly, in regard to written English proficie ncy, 32 of the 41 students (78%) considered themselves proficient, four fluent, and the remaining 5 (12.2%) were sufficient. Technology Skills Assessment Both sample groups, graduate students and underg raduate students, were asked to rate their level of use of 15 technologies ranging from ba sic hardware to 4D-CAD. For this studys purposes, the results will be anal yzed from only two of the four surveyed categoriesdomain specific tools and web-based tools. The other two categories, hardware devices and office document tools, are considered to be common technologies to the age group and not relevant to the subject area. Domain Specific Tools The first category studied, Domain Specific Tools sought to determine whether students were aware of certain technologi es commonly used in the construction industry, as well as the corresponding level of use. The technologies were presented in th e order of their market entry. 27

PAGE 28

The three technologies in cluded in the Domain Specific Tools category include (1 ) structural and architectural design tools (e.g., SAP2000, ADI NA, STAAD-Pro, ArchiCAD), (2) 2D& 3DCAD (e.g., AutoCAD, AutoDesk, MicroStation), and (3) 4D-and nD-CAD (e.g., Design + Schedule + Cost/Others). Data from category (1 ) was considered outdated and not analyzed. Undergraduate sample All undergraduate students surveyed were aw are of the domain specific tools or CAD programs. Figure 4-3 graphically presents the re sults. The most common response, or mode, in regard to the level of use of 2D-CAD and 3D-CAD such as Auto CAD, was never with 18 of the 34 (53%) undergraduate students surveyed re ported never using AutoCAD or products of a similar technological level. Th e response for 4D and nD-CAD such as BIM is more varied; however, the most common response, or mode, in th is case also was never, with 10 of the 34 (29%) respondents se lecting this option. Graduate sample All of the 41 graduate students surveyed we re aware of the noted domain specific tools. Figure 4-4 illustrates the survey findings. The mo st common response, or mode, was never or 1 for both levels of CAD technology. Five of the 41 (12%) respondents reported never using 2D or 3D-CAD technologies, whil e 10 (24%) respondents reported never using 4D or nD-CAD technologies. Chi-squared test: Domain specific tools The data set analyzed using descriptive statis tics (Figures 4-3 and 44) was also analyzed using the Chi-squared test at a 95% confidence level. For 2D and 3D-CAD, the calculated chisquared value was 8.638. This value is greate r than the tabulated value of 7.81(Ostle and Malone 1988) (degrees of freedom =3). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the two samples responses. Conversely, the Chi-square d calculated value found by analyzing the data 28

PAGE 29

from the 4D and nD-CAD responses yielded a response of 3.646, a value less than the tabulated value of 7.81 (Ostle and Malone 1988) (degrees of freedom=3). Therefor e there is no significant difference between the two samples. WebB ased Tools The second category studied, Web-Based Tools, sought to determine whether students were aware of certain internet communication platforms, as well as their corresponding level of use. The technologies were presented in the orde r of their market entry. Of the six technologies presented in the category, four of the more m odern technologies were selected for further study. These include the following: (1) social networks (e.g., Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIN), (2) Online forums/Wikis/Blogs, (3) Web/Video conf erences (e.g., Webinar), and (4) Electronic Resources (e.g., online publications online libraries, YouTube). Undergraduate sample The entire sample of 34 students, were aware of all of the presented web-based technologies (Figure 4-5). Thirty students reported using social networks such as Facebook and MySpace very often or on a daily basis. The us e of online forums such as wikis and blogs are also common among undergraduate students, w ith 24 of the 41 (58.5%) members sampled citing using the technology very ofte n or on a daily basis. Graduate sample Social networks such as Facebook and MySpace were cited as the most commonly used web-based tool, with 27 of the 41 graduate stude nts (66%) surveyed reported using them very often or on a daily basis. Twenty-four (58.5% ) students reported using Online Forums very often. Seven (17%) students reported using Web/Video Conferences very often. The most common response in regard to Electronic Resources was very often at 39%, while the least common was never, with 1 respondent (Figure 4-6). 29

PAGE 30

Chi-squared test: Web-based tools The data set analyzed using descriptive sta tistics (Figures 4.5 and 4.6) was also analyzed using the Chi-squared test. In regard to social networks, the calculated Chi-squared value is 3.507. This value is less than the tabulate d value of 7.81 (Ostle and Malone 1988) (using degrees of freedom equal to 3). Therefore, w ith a 95% confidence level, there is no significant difference between the two samples responses. The online forum section also revealed no si gnificant difference between the two samples at a 95% confidence level. The calculated Chi-squared va lue is 4.267. Using degrees of freedom equal to two, the tabulated value is 5.99 (O stle and Malone 1988). The calculated value is less than the tabulated value. A significant difference was found in regard to web/video conferen ces. The calculated Chi-squared value is 32.484. The tabulated valu e found (degrees of freedom=2) is 5.99(Ostle and Malone 1988). The tabulated va lue is less than the calculated value. Using two degrees of freedom and with a 95% confidence level, it is determined that there is a significant difference between the two samples. At a 95% confidence level, th e level of use of electronic resources was found to differ significantly between the two samples. The cal culated Chi-squared va lue is equal to 16.378 (Ostle and Malone 1988), while the tabulated value (three degrees of freedom) is lower at 7.81. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire This section sought to reveal a particular learning style prevalent among students in the Building Construction program at the University of Florida. Each of the 44 questions in this section is grouped into one of the following four learning style categories: (1 ) graphic or text, (2) details or concepts, (3) group or individual, and (4) certainty or creativ ity. The x-axis on all 30

PAGE 31

graphs pictured in this secti on is labeled with the correspond ing survey questions number. Refer to the corresponding tables or the Appendix for clarification. Graphics or Text Eleven of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population is largely composed of students who learn best from graphi cs or text. Of the tw o possible responses, (a) refers to graphics and (b) refers to texts (Table 4-1). Undergraduate sample Figure 4-7 shows undergraduate students preference of graphic presen tation over textual. Statement number three reads, When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most likely to get The options include (a) picture and (b) words. Thirty-two (94%) of the 34 student sampled selected picture. Statement number 19 reads I remember best and the corresponding options include (a) what I see and (b) what I hear. Twenty-nine of the 34 students surveyed selected option a. For entertainment, 26 (85%) of the 34 students, woul d rather (statement 39) (a) watch television, compared to eight stude nts who prefer to (b) read a book. Graduate sample The graph in Figure 4-8 shows graduate students preference of graphic presentation over textual. Statement number thr ee reads, When I think about wh at I did yesterday, I am most likely to get The options include (a) picture and (b) words. Thirty-seven of the 41 student sample, or 90%, selected picture. Statemen t number 19 reads I remember best and the corresponding options include (a) what I see and (b) what I he ar. Thirty-seven of the 41 students surveyed (90%) selected option a. For entertainment, 30 of the 41 students, or 73%, would rather (statement 39) (a) watch television, compared to eleven (26.8%) students who prefer to (b) read a book. 31

PAGE 32

Statement 15 is the only statement that pr oduced results inconsistent with the other statements. The statement reads, I like teach ers The two corresponding options are (a) who put a lot of diagrams on the board and (b) who spend a lot of time explaining. Twenty-three of the 34 (67%) undergraduate stude nts selected option b for text Twenty-four (59%) of the 41 graduate students selected option a or graphics. Details or Concepts Eleven of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population is largely composed of detail-oriented learners of conceptual learners. Of the tw o possible responses, (a) refers to details and (b) refe rs to concepts (Table 4-2). Undergraduate sample Statement 20 reads, It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps or (b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other subjects. Twenty-four (71%) of the 34 students selected a," or the detail option. Statement 24 reads, I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, Ill get it or (b) in fits and starts. Ill be totally confused and then suddenly it all clicks. Twen ty-one of the 34 undergraduate students surveyed selected a for regular pace. Statement 28 reads, When considering a body of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big pi cture or (b) try to understand the big picture before getting into the details. Seve nty percent or 24 undergraduate students, selected b, the concept option (Figure 4-9). Graduate sample Statement 20 reads, It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps or (b) give me an overall picture and relate the material to other subjects. Twenty-two of the 41 (54%) studen ts selected a, the detail option. Statement 24 reads, I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, Ill get it or (b) in fits and starts. Ill 32

PAGE 33

be totally confused and then suddenly it all clicks. Twenty-s even of the 41 (66%) graduate students surveyed selected a for regular pace. Statement 28 reads, When considering a body of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big pi cture or (b) try to understand the big picture before getting into the details. Sixt y-seven percent (27) graduate students, selected b, the concept option (Figure 4-10). The two samples, undergraduates and graduates, had similar preferences on all statements other than statement 32 and 40. Statement 32 reads, When writing a paper, I am more likely to (a) work on (think about or write) the beginning of the paper a nd progress forward or (b) brainstorm individually and then come together as a group to compare ideas. Twenty-six of the 34 (76.5%) undergraduate students selected a, the details op tion, while 27 (66%) of the 41 graduate students selected b, the concept option. Statement 40 reads, Some teachers start their lectures with an outline of what they will cover. Such outlines are (a) somewhat helpful to me or (b) very helpful to me. Sixty-eight percent of undergraduate respondents selected a, the details option. Of the 41 person graduate sample, 16 students selected a, with the re maining 25 (61%) students selecting b, the concept option. Group or Individual Six of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the popul ation prefers learning in a group setting or individually. Of the two possible responses, (a) refers to group and (b) refers to individual (Table 4-3). Undergraduate sample Statement 13 reads, In classes I have taken (a ) I have usually gotten to know many of the students or (b) I have rare ly gotten to know many of the st udents. Twenty-two, or 65%, believe themselves to be more group-oriented, sele cting a. Statement 21 reads, I prefer to 33

PAGE 34

study in a (a) group or (b) al one. Twenty-one (61.7%) survey respondents prefer to study alone. Statement 41 reads The idea of doing hom ework in groups, with one grade for the entire group (a) appeals to me or (b) does not appeal to me. Twen ty-two students (65%) selected option b, corresponding to the i ndividual option (Figure 4-11). Graduate sample Statement 13 reads, In classes I have taken (a ) I have usually gotten to know many of the students or (b) I have rare ly gotten to know many of the st udents. Twenty-three (56%) believe themselves to be more group-oriented, se lecting a. Statement 21 reads, I prefer to study in a (a) group or (b) alone. Eighty-three percent (34) of the students surveyed prefer to study alone. Statement 41 reads The idea of do ing homework in groups, with one grade for the entire group (a) appeals to me or (b) does not appeal to me. Twenty-three (56%) select option b for individual (Figure 4-12). Both samples, undergraduate and graduate students, responded similarly to many of the six questions contained in this sec tion. However, statement 21 yiel ded different results. When students are asked if they prefer to study in a group or alone, 62% of undergraduate students and 82% of graduate students sele cted individual, option b. Certainty or Creativity Nine of the 44 questions were designed to identify whether the population identifies themselves as preferring facts and certainty or theory and creativit y. Of the two possible responses, (a) refers to certainty and (b) refers to creativity (Table 4-4). Undergraduate sample Statement 2 reads, I would rather be consider ed (a) realistic or ( b) innovative. Sixtytwo percent of undergraduate student s selected (a) realistic. Statement 6 reads, If I were a teacher, I would rather teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life situations or (b) that 34

PAGE 35

deals with ideas and theories. Ninety-one percen t of students, or 31, selected a, the certainty option. Statement 18 reads, I pr efer the idea of (a) certainty or (b) theory. Twenty-six students (76%) selected (a) certainty (Figure 4-13). Graduate sample Statement 2 reads, I would rather be consid ered (a) realistic or (b) innovative. Twenty-four of the 41 graduate students selected (a) realistic (59%). Statement 6 reads, If I were a teacher, I would rather teach a course (a) that de als with facts and real life situations or (b) that deals with ideas and theories. Sevent y-three percent (30) of students selected a, the certainty option. Statement 18 reads, I prefer the idea of (a) certainty or (b) theory. Thirtytwo students (78%) selected (a) certainty (Figure 4-14). With the exception of statement 34, both sample groups demonstrated similar preferences in regard to certainty and crea tivity. Statement 34 reads, I c onsider it higher praise to call someone (a) sensible of (b) imaginative. Fifty-five perc ent (19) of the 34 undergraduate students surveyed, selected a, while 54% of the graduate sample group selected b. Limitations Undergraduate students were surveyed in the beginning of the spring 2008 semester. Graduate students were surveyed at the end of the fall 2007 semester. The survey was not designed to identify the undergraduate degree of the graduate students. Additionally, Chi squared tests were used to analyze data collected from the technology skills section of the survey only. Certain subjects in the survey were cons idered outdated. Data from these subjects was collected but not analyzed. For example, the Domain Specific Tools category includes structural architectural design tools such as SAP2000 a nd ADINA. These programs have since been replaced by 2D, 3D, 4D and nD sy stems; therefore structural arch itectural design tools were not analyzed. 35

PAGE 36

15% 67% 12% 6% none less than 2 years 2-5 years more than 5 years Figure 4-1. Demographic Survey Results, Undergraduate Work Experience. p 37% 29% 24% 10% none less than 2 years 2-5 years more than 5 years Figure 4-2. Demographic Survey Results, Graduate Work Experience. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20N o t A w ar e Ne ve r R a r el y O ccas i ona l l y O fte n Ve r y O f tenLevel of Usestudent respo n 2D & 3D-CAD 4D &nD-CAD Figure 4-3. Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Unde rgraduate Students. 36

PAGE 37

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Not Awar e N eve r Ra r e l y Occasionall y Often V er y O f tenLevel of Usestudent respo n 2D & 3D-CAD 4D &nD-CAD Figure 4-4. Part A Survey Results, Domain Specific Tools: Gr aduate Students. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Not Awar e Ne ver Ra r ely O ccasionall y O ften V e ry OftenLevel of Usestudent respo n Social Networks Online Forums Web/Video Confs. Elec. Resources Figure 4-5.Part A Survey Results, Web-Ba sed Tools: Undergraduate Students. 37

PAGE 38

0 5 10 15 20 25 30N o t A w ar e Never Ra r e l y O c casi on al l y Often V ery Ofte nLevel of Usestudent respo n Social Networks Online Forums Web/Video Confs. Elec. Resources Figure 4-6. Part A Survey Results, We b-Based Tools: Graduate Students. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 37111519232731353943 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)graphics (b)text Figure 4-7. Undergraduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text. 38

PAGE 39

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 37111519232731353943 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)graphics (b)text Figure 4-8. Graduate Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text. Table 4-1. Learning Style: Graphic vs. Text. Corresponding Survey Questions 3 When I think about what I did yesterday, I am most likely to get (a) picture or (b) words. 7 I prefer to get new information in (a) pictur es, diagrams, graphs or maps or (b) written directions or verbal information. 11 In a book with lots of pictures and charts, I am likely to (a) look over the pictures and charts carefully or (b) focus on the written text. 15 I like teachers (a) who put a lot of diagrams on the board or (b) who spend a lot of time explaining. 19 I remember best (a) what I see or (b) what I hear. 23 When I get directions to a new place, I prefer (a) a map or (b) written instructions. 27 When I see diagram or sketch in class, I am most likely to remember (a) the picture or (b) what the instructor said about it. 31 When someone is showing me data, I prefer (a) charts or graphs or (b) text summarizing the results. 35 When I meet people at a party, I am morel likely to remember (a) what they looked like or (b) what they said about themselves. 39 For entertainment, I would rather (a ) watch television or (b) read a book. 43 I tend to picture places I ha ve been (a) easily and accurately or (b) with difficulty and without much detail. 39

PAGE 40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 48121620242832364044 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)details (b)concepts Figure 4-9. Undergraduate Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 48121620242832364044 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)details (b)concepts Figure 4-10. Graduate Learning Style: Detail vs. Concept. 40

PAGE 41

Table 4-2. Learning Style: Details vs. Concepts. Corresponding Survey Question 4 I tend to (a) understand details of a subject but may be fuzzy about its overall structure or (b) understand the overall structure but may be fuzzy about details. 8 Once I understand (a) all the parts, I understand th e whole thing or (b) the whole thing, I see how the parts fit. 12 When I solve math problems (a) I usually work my way to the solutions one step at a time (b) I often just see the solutions but then have to struggle to figure out the steps to get to them. 16 When Im analyzing a story or novel (a) I think of the incidents and try to put them together to figure out the themes (b) I just know what th e themes are when I finish reading and then I have to go back and find the in cidents that demonstrate them. 20 It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps or (b) give me an overall picture and re late the material to other subjects. 24 I learn (a) at a fairly regular pa ce. If I study hard, Ill get it or (b) in fits and starts. Ill be totally confused and then suddenly it all clicks. 28 When considering a body of information, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big picture or (b) try to understand the big picture before getting into the details. 32 When writing a paper, I am more likely to (a ) work on (think about or write) the beginning of the paper and progress forward or (b) work on (think about or write) different parts of the paper and then order them. 36 When I am learning a new subject, I prefer to (a) stay focused on that subject or (b) try to make connections between that subject and related subjects. 40 Some teachers start their lectures with an outline of what they will cover. Such outlines are (a) somewhat helpful to me or (b) very helpful to me. 44 When solving problems in a group, I would be more likely to (a) think of the steps in the solution process or (b) think of possible steps in the solution pr ocess or (b) think of possible consequences or applications of the solution in a wide range of areas. 0 5 10 15 20 25 91321333741 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)group (b)individual Figure 4-11 Undergraduate Learning Style: Group vs. Individual. 41

PAGE 42

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 91321333741 corresponding survey questionstudent reso n (a)group (b)individual Figure 4-12. Graduate Learni ng Style: Group vs. Individual. Table 4-3 Learning Style: Group vs. Individual. Corresponding Survey Questions 9 In a study group working on difficult material I am more likely to (a) jump in and contribute ideas or (b) sit back and listen. 13 In classes I have taken (a) I have usually go tten to know many of the st udents or (b) I have rarely gotten to know many of the students. 21 I prefer to study (a) in a study group or (b) alone. 33 When I have to work on a group project, I fi rst want to (a) have group brainstorming where everyone contributes ideas or (b) brainstorm individually and then come together as a group to compare ideas. 37 I am more likely to be consid ered (a) outgoing or (b) reserved. 41 The idea of doing homework in groups, with on e grade for the entire group (a) appeals to me or (b) does not appeal to me. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2614182226303438 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)certainity (b)creativity Figure 4-13. Undergraduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity. 42

PAGE 43

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2614182226303438 corresponding survey questionstudent respo n (a)certainty (b)creativity Figure 4-14. Graduate Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity. Table 4-4. Learning Style: Certainty vs. Creativity. Corresponding Survey Questions 2 I would rather be considered (a) realistic or (b) innovative. 6 If I were a teacher, I would ra ther teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life situations or (b) that deals with ideas and theories. 14 In reading nonfiction, I prefer (a) something th at teaches me new facts or tells me how to do something or (b) something that gi ves me new ideas to think about. 18 I prefer the idea of (a) certainty or (b) theory. 22 I am more likely to be consid ered (a) careful about the details of my wo rk or (b) creative about how to do my work. 26 When I am reading for enjoyment, I like writers to (a) clearly say what they mean or (b) say things to in creative, interesting ways. 30 When I have to perform a task, I prefer to (a) master one way of doing it or (b) come up with new ways of doing it. 34 I consider it higher praise to call so meone (a) sensible or (b) imaginative. 38 I prefer courses that emphasize (a) concrete ma terials (facts, data) or (b) abstract materials (concepts, theories). 43

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The results discussed in Chapte r 4 reveal the present level of use of specific technologies and the desired learning style of todays students. The following are the conclusions drawn from these results and some recommendations for related studies. Conclusions Technology Assessment Each hypothesis is followed by a discussion of the findings relationshi p to education and the construction industry. HYPOTHESIS 1: Students regardless of academic classification seldom use 4D and nDCAD technologies. UNDERGRADUATES. True. 50% of students report using 4D and nD-CAD rarely or never (Figure 4.1). GRADUATES. True. 78% of students report using 4D and nD-CAD rarely or never (Figure 4.2). BIM products are increasing in popularity indust ry wide. Graduates are more familiar with such software than undergraduates. The highe r level of familiarity may be due to the students undergraduate degree or work experience. HYPOTHESIS 2. Students regardless of academic cl assification frequently use social networks. UNDERGRADUATES. True. 97% of students surveyed re port using social networks often or very often. (Figure 4.3) GRADUATES. True. 78% of students surveyed report using social networks often or very often (Figure 4.4). Students are comfortable with th is technology. Both groups exhibi t high levels of use. It serves as an informal method of communicati on, but has few direct applications in the construction industry. Consider introducing a school-based social networking site for students improved student communication. HYPOTHESIS 3. Students regardless of academic classification seldom use online forums. UNDERGRADUATES. False. 64.7% of students surveyed report using online forums occasionally, rarely, or never (Figure 4.3). GRADUATES. False. 56.1% of students surveyed re port using online forums occasionally, rarely, or never (Figure 4.4). Increased use of this applica tion in education may increase comfort levels. Implementing online forums in hybrid learning environments may increase the level of student 44

PAGE 45

interaction and simulate face-to-face interaction. Some cons truction companies, such as DPR Construction, Inc., currently use wiki as a quick refere nce for construction issues. HYPOTHESIS 4. Students regardless of academic cl assification seldom use web/video conferencing. UNDERGRADUATES. False. 64.7% of students su rveyed report using web/video conferences occasionally, rar ely, or never (Figure 4.3). GRADUATES. False. 85.4% of students survey ed report using web/video conferences occasionally, rarely, or never (Figure 4.4). Increased use of web/video conferences could give students more access to virtual site visits or simply allow them to view lectures from home. The same is true for the industry. Off site management could view their projects progress and attend site meetings from the main office or from their home. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire Each hypothesis is followed by a statement that serves to relate the characteristic to construction experience. HYPOTHESIS 5. The student population regardless of academic classification favors graphic over textual presentation. UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-5). GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-6). Good graphic communication skills are helpfu l when reading plan s and shop drawings. HYPOTHESIS 6. The student regardless of academic classification favors learning details over concepts. UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-7). GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-8). Construction is a detail-oriented subject. It is likely that students with this learning style are drawn to this field of study. HYPOTHESIS 7. The student population regardless of academic classification favors group over individualized learning environments. UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-9). GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-10). Comfort in group situations is helpful when managing people. HYPOTHESIS 8. The student population regardless of academic classification favors certainty over creativity. UNDERGRADUATES. True (Figure 4-11). GRADUATES. True (Figure 4-12). Construction documents offer specific, precise direction. 45

PAGE 46

The conclusions drawn from the Index of Learning Questionnaire characterized undergraduate and graduate students differentl y. Instructors teachi ng a similar curriculum should keep these differing qualities in mind wh en designing lesson plans and presenting new information. Recommendations for Related Study Survey Recommendations If using the same survey on a different popul ation is desired, it is recommended that the survey be revisited and the following considerations be taken: Technology assessment: Part A Remove the Aware (Y/N) column. Inclusion confuses participants. Depending on the population, consider removing the first tier subgroups, such as basic hardware. It can be assumed that college -level participants have daily exposure to such technologies. Consider adding a column to measure students intere st in the different technologies. Eliminate outda ted technologies from survey. Technology assessment: Part B Eliminate understanding column. Assume that experience and understanding are somewhat rela ted. Including both is redundant. This will shorten survey and lessen confus ion, resulting in more reliable responses. Review statements and select those that seem most relevant to the probl em you are trying to solve. Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire. No changes recommended. General. To prevent students from arbitrarily answering in order to complete the survey sooner, shorten the survey to increase its legitimacy. 46

PAGE 47

Additional Studies Administer the survey to architecture students and building construction students. Analyze the results to see if there are any differe nces or similarities in learning styles. This could be a good indicator of what field the student may excel in. Administer this survey to a different college and compar e the results. Additionally, consider comparing the results of this study to the survey authors results. Survey instructors to find their level of technology skil ls and method of lesson deliver y. Determine whether they are consistent with students prefer ences. Lastly, survey the fres hmen class. During the survey groups last year of study, administer the survey again to determine the level of progress made. Closing Remarks The construction industry relies on open and efficient communication. Applications that simplify the flow of information are welcomed a dditions to the industry. If the next generation of constructors is comfortable with such a pplications, so long as technology can improve efficiency, it is likely its infl uence will only increase. The use of technology inside and outside of the classroom exposes student s to the available t echnologies while providing communication methods that satisfy the learning preferences of all students. 47

PAGE 48

APPENDIX SURVEY Technology Skill Assessment Survey CI-TEAM Project University of Texas IRB Protocol #2006-07-0091 Instructions: The purpose of this instrument is to assess the level of technol ogy knowledge and skills of civil engineering students and construction professionals. You will be asked to provide your UTEID. This is used purely to classify participants background and is not linked to any of your UT profile or record. You may choos e to not answer any questions. There are two parts to this questionnaire. The first part is basic de mographic and background information. The second part is the technology sk ill assessment. Please record how much time it took you to complete both sessions. We would lik e to know if the length of the survey is appropriate. The data gathered in this study will be review ed by Kathy Schmidt, Director of the Colleges Faculty Innovation Center. Should you have concerns please contact the Office of Research Support and Compliance at 471-8871. UTEID ___________________ 48

PAGE 49

Demographic and Background Information Age group: 18-25 25-35 35-45 Over 45 Gender: Male Female Current academic standing: Not in college Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate school Current academic major area (be specific; if not yet have a major please specify intended major): Structural Engineering CEM/CEPM Geotechnical Engineering Environmental & Water Resources Engineering Architectural Engineering Transportation Engineering Building Construction Architecture Other (please specify): Targeted job location after graduation: USA Others How many years of construction work experience do you have? None Less than 2 years 2 to 5 years More than 5 years Current or intended (aft er graduation) work area: Management (executives) Support (technical, estimating, sales, accounting, etc.) Supervision (foremen and superintendents) Labor (skilled and unskilled) Other (please specify): English proficiency: Oral Written No skill Limited Sufficient Fluent Proficient 49

PAGE 50

Technology Skill Assessment PART A Please indicate whether or not you are aware of the following groups of technologies (such as Basic hardware or Office document tools) by a Yes or No, and your level of use for each group. The examples of tools for each group are listed for explanation only, not as a check list. You are to indicate your awareness and rate your level of use for each of the whole groups in general, not for each of the individual tools listed. 1 Never 2 Rarely (a few times a year) 4 Often (weekly basis) 3 Occasionally (once or twice a mont h) 5 Very often (daily basis) Level of Use Group Technology Aware (Y/N) 1 2 3 4 5 Basic hardware (computers, printers, fax machines, scanners, digital cameras, projectors) Handheld devices (labtop, tabletPCs, PDAs, cell phones, pagers, iPhones, iPods) HARDWAR E DEVICES Sensing technologies (RFID, sensors) Office document tools (word processors, spreadsheets, presentations) Graphic and web design tool s (Photoshop, Paintbrush, Fireworks, CorelDraw, FrontPage, DreamWeaver) Email and Time/Task management tools (MS Outlook, desktop organizers) OFFICE DOCUMENT TOOLS Knowledge and Data management tools (MS Access, EndNote) Structural & Architectural design tools (SAP2000, ADINA, STAAD-Pro, ArchiCAD) 2D& 3D-CAD (AutoCAD, AutoDesk, MicroStation) DOMAIN SPECIFI C TOOLS 4Dand nD-CAD (Design + Schedule + Cost/Others) Email & Instant messaging (Yahoo Messenger, AOL, MSN) Search engines (Google, Yahoo) Social networks (Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIN) Online forums/Wikis/Blogs Web/Video conferences (Webinar) WEB-BASED TOOLS Electronic Resources (online publications, online libraries, YouTube) 50

PAGE 51

PART B The statements in the table on the next pages desc ribe how different technol ogies can be used in certain contexts to promote learning or improve work proficiency. For each of these statements, please rate the relevance of the usage describe d in that topic to you (including your work and personal/social life), your level of understanding about the usage, and the experience you have with such usage. When giving these scores, please think about technology in general that includes the groups of tools listed on page 3. Feel free to refer to the list of technologies on page 3 should you need to be reminded. Degree of Topic Relevance: 1 Not at all 2 Somewhat 3 Relevant 4 Very 5 Extremely The word relevance conveys the relative im portance of the question to you, the student. Relevance, then, should be rated based on an in dividuals view of its importance to their knowledge. For example, not knowing how to set certain options in a Web browser may have little relevance to you because you do not perceive such knowledge as important. My Level of Topic Understanding: 1 No 2 Limited 3 General 4 Competent 5 Expert The word understanding relates to a students comprehension of the sc ience and/or functions of a technology (how it works, what it does). Y ou should rate these questions solely based on your understanding. For example, you may identify a technology/skill/issue of low relevance, but still have a high understa nding of the technology. My Level of Topic Experience: 1 None 2 Little 3 Moderate 4 Considerable 5 Extensive You should rate experience based on your uses of a technology. The level of experience may differ based on each question in th is Arc. You may have high experience (used a technology a lot for example), but you may not have a high unders tanding of the technology, and may or may not see relevance or importance to such knowledge. In contrast you might understand a technology very well (how radio wave transmission works) bu t do not have much direct experience of using it. # Statement Relevance Understanding Experience 1 I use technology to keep up with course requirements and assignments, such as word processing, spreadsheets, email, online document sharing tools, and basic software programs. 2 I use email, instant messenger, social networks or other technology to communication with faculty and other students in and outside of class. 51

PAGE 52

# Statement RelevanceUnderstanding Experience 3 When doing group work, I am aware of and using technology-enhanced collaborati ng tools such as email, instant messengers, online forums, blogs, wikis, web/video conferences. 4 Technology has great potential for helping me performing intellectual activities that promote learning far beyond traditional lectures, such as interactive selfguided learning programs, role-play programs, or online teamwork environments. 5 I use some technology for my active learning, such as email discussions, forum discussions, using software for simulation or visualization. 6 I am aware that an individuals attitude/preference toward a certain technology depends on several factors: technical, psychological, soci al, and economic. What is b est for me might not be the best tool for my colleagues. 7 I am tolerant to these individual differences. 8 I use technology when it is mo re beneficial than other methods, for example: spreadsheets are useful for repetitive calculations bu t taking notes on paper might be easier than on a laptop when walking around. 9 I am aware of the fact that every technology has its limitations, social as well as economic constraints. 10 I use email, pager/cell phone and other media to complement, not to replace face-to-face communication and enhance overall effectiveness of communication since each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. 11 I am flexible and respectful of others needs, perception and habit of e-communication. 12 I try to understand the ps ychological, technical, and social conditions as well as individual needs when working collaboratively using technology so that mutual respect and understand ing is in place. 13 Simulated activities with t echnology might not have the full power of human interact ion, but they avoid negative human influences such as emotions and tension, and I can learn with technology comfortably. 14 I know what aspect(s) of technology (technical, psychological, social, economi c) is most important to me and how they affect one another in my willingness to use it. 52

PAGE 53

# Statement RelevanceUnderstanding Experience 15 I am willing to learn about a new technology and change my current attitude in light of new knowledge. 16 The creative ways I can complete class exercises and assignments require both paper and electronic-based products. 17 By using technology, I learn new things beyond the requirements or scope of the assignment I am doing (use search engines to explore a t opic, automate a solution in a computer program for trend analysis). 18 I am able to act comfortably in both synchronized and asynchronized communication (such as, being patient when emails are not responded to promptly, being able to process and exchange information in a distributed manner instead of a continuous and intensive process in a face-to-face dialogue). 19 In face-to-face interaction, I can use technology as an agent of trust to enhance cl arity and reduce confusion in expressing ideas and conveying messages (for example: use a PowerPoint presentation for brainstorming, use a projector to show ideas being documented, etc.) 20 I am willing to expose myself, confront with the lack of natural human inte raction, and share my knowledge with others when working in an online environment (such as email, forum, etc/.) 21 Sometimes we need a break from technology and work directly with each other as human interaction cannot be replaced altogether by technology. I know how to keep this balance. 22 I become more accepting and tolerant to others opinion when working from a distance as I understand the nature of asynchronized communication (both in time and space). 23 I find active learning most effective when involving both technology and humans. I know when I should and when I should not use technology fo r activities such as role playing, self reflection, discussions, etc. 24 I can overcome psychological frustration when something goes wrong with a technology and focus on the technical features to solve the problem. 25 I am interested in using technology to improve not only my work but also my personal and social life. 26 I understand technology to th e point where I dont 53

PAGE 54

# Statement RelevanceUnderstanding Experience always trust the products of a computer program. I understand that under certain circumstances the technology can go wrong, and I can normally tell when this happens. If it does, I normally know how to move forward. 27 I am sensible to others need to express ideas, to build self-esteem, or recognition. 28 I am able to give and receive constructive criticisms through non-face-to-face communication (I know how to react to different opinions when using online discussion forums). 29 I am able to relieve tension when miscommunication occurs. 30 I take advantage of cybers paces capability of storing and exchanging a great amount of information to better react to urgent problems, de fine clearer scope of work, centralize individual efforts, and keep track of groups progress. 31 With the help of technology, I consistently and comfortably change the focus from group benefits to individual benefits when needed to ensure both individual and group goals ar e achieved (for example: when working on a group assignment via email, I know how to address an individuals concern so that he/she knows that his/her voice did not go unnoticed.) 32 If I use technology, I know when it is too overwhelming and forces me to spend time on figuring out how to use it, instead of my thinking about what I am doing. I can get myself out of that trap and adjust the way I approach the technology to make sure it is being used as a tool for me to learn. 33 I am aware that technology is changing fast, but I am willing to invest my time and other resources in trying out new things. 34 I am determined to exploit technology to enhance my life-long learning. 35 I can use technology in a creative way to solve my problems or do my tasks, not only using the most obvious or common features for typical tasks. Sometimes I even try to use it for things it has not been designed for primarily. 54

PAGE 55

# Statement RelevanceUnderstanding Experience 36 As I perform my task using technology, I think about the process I am going through and how specific features relate to the higher level sy stem, and I am normally able to understand more abstr act and generic concepts beyond the specific task at hand. 37 I can use various media to communicate for effective collaboration and mutual understanding (email, instant message, web-based forums, cell phones, presentation software, meetings, wiki, etc.) 38 I am able to deal with dominance and power in groups when interacting in a medium other than face-to-face. 39 I am willing to invest time and effort to help others learn/achieve their goals because I also learn a lot from that. 40 Technology is very helpful t ool to share your knowledge with others, and to make any resources better accessible for individual and group learning. 41 Learning with technology motivates me to explore more about a topic beyond the current requirements. 42 Learning with technology helps me develop the ability to better define the ultimate l earning objectives, and carry out the learning activities wit hout extensive instructions. Time taken to complete this survey: 55

PAGE 56

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire (Copyright Barbara A. Soloma n & Richard M. Felder, Nort h Carolina State University) ID ___________________ Directions This questionnaire is designed to identify your pref erred style (styles) of learning. For each of the 44 questions below select either "a" or "b" to indicate your answer. Please choose only one answer for each question. If both "a" and "b" s eem to apply to you, choose the one that applies more frequently. 1 I understand someth ing better after I (a) try it out. (b) think it through. 2 I would rather be considered (a) realistic. (b) innovative. 3 When I think about what I did ye sterday, I am most likely to get (a) a picture. (b) words. 4 I tend to (a) understand details of a subject but may be fuzzy a bout its overall structure. (b) understand the overall structure but may be fuzzy about details. 5 When I am learning something new, it helps me to (a) talk about it. (b) think about it. 6 I were a teacher, I woul d rather teach a course (a) that deals with facts and real life situations. (b) that deals with ideas and theories. 7 I prefer to get new information in (a) pictures, diagrams, graphs, or maps. (b) written directions or verbal information. 8 Once I understand (a) all the parts, I und erstand the whole thing. (b) the whole thing, I see how the parts fit. 9 In a study group working on difficult material, I am more likely to (a) jump in and contribute ideas. (b) sit back and listen. 56

PAGE 57

10 I find it easier (a) to learn facts. (b) to learn concepts. 11 In a book with lots of pictur es and charts, I am likely to (a) look over the pictur es and charts carefully. (b) focus on the written text. 12 When I solve math problems (a) I usually work my way to the solutions one step at a time. (b) I often just see th e solutions but then have to str uggle to figure out the steps to get to them. 13 In classes I have taken (a) I have usually gotten to know many of the students. (b) I have rarely gotten to know many of the students. 14 In reading nonf iction, I prefer (a) something that teaches me new fa cts or tells me how to do something. (b) something that gives me new ideas to think about. 15 I like teachers (a) who put a lot of diagrams on the board. (b) who spend a lot of time explaining. 16 When I'm analyzing a story or a novel (a) I think of the incidents and try to put them together to figure out the themes. (b) I just know what the themes are when I finish reading and then I have to go back and find the incidents that demonstrate them. 17 When I start a homework problem, I am more likely to (a) start working on the solution immediately. (b) try to fully understand the problem first. 18 I prefer the idea of (a) certainty. (b) theory. 19 I remember best (a) what I see. (b) what I hear. 20 It is more important to me that an instructor (a) lay out the material in clear sequential steps. (b) give me an overall picture and re late the material to other subjects. 21 I prefer to study (a) in a study group. (b) alone. 22 I am more likely to be considered (a) careful about the details of my work. (b) creative about how to do my work. 23 When I get directions to a new place, I prefer (a) a map. (b) written instructions. 57

PAGE 58

24 I learn (a) at a fairly regular pace. If I study hard, I'll "get it." (b) in fits and starts. I' ll be totally confused and th en suddenly it all "clicks." 25 I would rather first (a) try things out. (b) think about how I'm going to do it. 26 When I am reading for enjoyment, I like writers to (a) clearly say what they mean. (b) say things in creative, interesting ways. 27 When I see a diagram or sketch in class, I am most likely to remember (a) the picture. (b) what the instru ctor said about it. 28 When considering a body of info rmation, I am more likely to (a) focus on details and miss the big picture. (b) try to understand the big pictur e before getting into the details. 29 I more easily remember (a) something I have done. (b) something I have thought a lot about. 30 When I have to perform a task, I prefer to (a) master one way of doing it. (b) come up with new ways of doing it. 31 When someone is showing me data, I prefer (a) charts or graphs. (b) text summarizing the results. 32 When writing a paper, I am more likely to (a) work on (think about or write) the beginning of the paper and progress forward. (b) work on (think about or write) differen t parts of the paper and then order them. 33 When I have to work on a group project, I first want to (a) have "group brainstorming" where everyone contributes ideas. (b) brainstorm individually and then come together as a group to compare ideas. 34 I consider it higher praise to call someone (a) sensible. (b) imaginative. 35 When I meet people at a party, I am more likely to remember (a) what they looked like. (b) what they said about themselves. 58

PAGE 59

36 When I am learning a new subject, I prefer to (a) stay focused on that subject, learning as much about it as I can. (b) try to make connections between that subject and related subjects. 37 I am more likely to be considered (a) outgoing. (b) reserved. 38 I prefer courses that emphasize (a) concrete material (facts, data). (b) abstract material (concepts, theories). 39 For entertainment, I would rather (a) watch television. (b) read a book. 40 Some teachers start their lectur es with an outline of what th ey will cover. Such outlines are (a) somewhat helpful to me. (b) very helpful to me. 41 The idea of doing homework in groups, with one grade for the entire group, (a) appeals to me. (b) does not appeal to me. 42 When I am doing long calculations, (a) I tend to repeat all my st eps and check my work carefully. (b) I find checking my work tiresome and have to force myself to do it. 43 I tend to picture places I have been (a) easily and fairly accurately. (b) with difficulty and without much detail. 44 When solving problems in a gr oup, I would be more likely to (a) think of the steps in the solution process. (b) think of possible consequences or appli cations of the solution in a wide range of areas. Thank you for your participation! 59

PAGE 60

LIST OF REFERENCES Adrian, James A. (2004). Construction Productivity: Measurement and Improvement, Stiples, Champaign, IL. Al-Musallam, Abed Abdullah (2002) A Web-base d approach for coordinating architectural drawings with other construction documents. Ph.D. dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, United States -Illi nois. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (P ublication No. AAT 3070932). Apple Computer, Inc. (2008, February 11) ITunes U and Mobile Learning. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.apple.com/education/itu nesu_mobilelearning/itunesu.html Autodesk. (2008, February 12) Autodesk Constructware Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/se rvlet/index?id=6871224&siteID=123112 Bricsnet. (2008, February 12) Project Center: Benefits Retrieved February 13, 2008), from http://bricsnet.com/html/projectcenterbenefits.htm Charalambides, Jason Evelthon ( 2004) Computer method for the ge neration of the geometry of tensegrity structures. Ph.D. dissertation, The Un iversity of Texas at Austin, United States -Texas. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3143665). Coyle, James E., Jr. (2007) Wikis in the coll ege classroom: A comparative study of online and face-to-face group collaboration at a private liberal arts university. Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, Unite d States -Ohio. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database (Publication No. AAT 3263183). Dorji, Ugyen (2001) The National Architectural Training and Building Research Centre in Bhutan. M.E.Des. dissertation, University of Calgary (Canada), Canada. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Disse rtations database. (Publication No. AAT MQ66929). E-Builder. (2008, February 12) Product Highlights Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.e-builder.net/pr oducts/collabo rator.html EraBuild (2006). Review of the current stat e of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology, its use and potential future use in Construction. EraBuild, http://www.fiatech.org/pdfs/r esearch/ERABUILD_RFID.pdf (Mar. 5, 2008). National BIM Standard. (2008, February 11) Welcome to NBIMS Retrieved February 12, 2008 from http://facilityinformationcouncil.org/bim/index.php Ostle, B. and Malone, L. (1988) Statis tics in research, 4th. Ed, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 60

PAGE 61

Purdue University Emerging Construc tion Technologies. (2008, February 10). ProjectCenter. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://rebar.ecn.purdue.edu/ECT/ Internet/projectcenter.aspx Shaurette, Mark (2007) Assessment of webc am technology on teaching and learning in construction management education. Ph.D. disse rtation, Purdue University, United States -Indiana. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3278688). Teizer, Jochen (2006) Real-time spatial modeling to detect and track re sources on construction sites. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Aus tin, United States -Texas. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digi tal Dissertations da tabase. (Publication No. AAT 3267849). Whiteside, Aimee Lynn (2007) Expl oring social presence in co mmunities of practice within a hybrid learning environment: A longitudinal ex amination of two case studies within the School Technology Leadership graduate-level certificate program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, United States -Minnesota. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations da tabase. (Publication No. AAT 3275052). 61

PAGE 62

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda A. Manthorne began her college educa tion at the University of Florida in 2001. Studying architecture, she spent her last design st udio on Nantucket Island in a school-sponsored summer program. Upon receiving he r Bachelor of Design, majoring in architecture in the spring of 2006, she interned at an Orlando-based archit ecture firm during the summer. She began her graduate education in August 2006 at the Ri nker School of Building Construction at the University of Florida. After completion of her first year of study, she pa rticipated in a summer internship program with a San Francisco, CA gene ral contractor. It was here that she became a LEED Accredited Professional. Amanda finished her graduate degree in August of 2008 and began working for a development group in Chicago, IL. 62