DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES FOR COMPREHENSIVE, COMPUTER-AUGMENTED CURRICULA FOR CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

Introduction

In 1984, the University of Southern Mississippi, a publicly supported institution, initiated a campus-wide program to provide computer facilities for all its students. During the two year project, the University purchased and installed over one hundred IBM compatible personal computers in student laboratories. A University Director of Computer Facilities was hired and given the task of supervising the purchase and installation of computer equipment. The program which was highly praised and launched with high expectations fell far short of providing the support required for comprehensive implementation of computer applications in highly technical fields, such as the Construction Engineering Technology (CET) program.

For several reasons, university administrators usually are not prepared to supply the needs of highly technical departments, such as construction education. They do not anticipate the much larger expenditure required, and they do not realistically evaluate the current faculty's level of expertise in computer usage. Consequently, they fail to recognize the need to hire computer experts to properly evaluate hardware and software and to assist faculty in overcoming the anxiety which often accompanies a shift from time-tested methodology to new technology. Finally, they often expect departments to obtain external funds to purchase much of the needed equipment; and, while this expectation might be reasonable for some departments, construction education programs historically have not received such support from the construction industry and federal funding agencies. The problems faced during comprehensive computer implementation projects are discussed in this paper and recommendations for more realistic and effective methods of providing support for construction education programs are presented.

Technical Computer Facilities Expenditures

A more realistic assessment of the level of investment required for computer implementation in construction education would enable university administrators to plan a smoother transition. While a workstation suitable for general student use may be adequately configured around a low cost personal computer, such as the TANDY 1000 with a two disk drive, a workstation suitable for most construction education courses requires a hard disk drive with minimum memory in the range of 10 to 20 Megabytes. For example, a workstation for just one important application in construction education coursework, computer aided drafting and design (CADD), must include special input devices such as the PC mouse, digitizing tablets, and pointing pencils. Output for CADD requires more expensive dot matrix printers or even more expensive plotters. High resolution color monitors must replace the monochrome monitors which are adequate for many computer applications. A typical CADD workstation configuration is listed below. Estimates of the costs are also presented.

For design projects, at least one precision plotter should be provided for each cluster of workstations. This item costs from $3,000 for a simple four-pen plotter to $14,000 for a precision eight-pen plotter capable of large, color plots.

While much of the software required for word processing and simple spread sheet design is relatively inexpensive and quite often is available in the public domain, students in construction education require more expensive software. Using CADD as an example, software, such as AUTOCAD, costs $2,000 per licensed copy. Architectural and mechanical extensions for AUTOCAD software cost an additional $750 to $1,000 each. Since each CADD workstation must have a licensed copy of suitable software, the additional expense of $2,750 to $3,000 must be included in projected total cost estimates.

It is easy to see why administrators, inexperienced in computer usage, find it difficult to anticipate the total cost of configuring CADD workstations. Fortunately, once a workstation is configured for CADD, it will also serve as a suitable unit for the larger estimating and scheduling software required for other construction education coursework. In addition to the student laboratory CADD workstations, equivalent workstations must be provided for faculty members who teach CADD courses.

Faculty Support

University administrators often expect their faculty members to purchase their own office computer equipment and to find the time to become proficient in computer use. These expectations may not be too unreasonable for faculty who need only simple word processing and small spread sheet analysis. However, faculty members who are expected to purchase computer equipment for CADD workstations find the costs prohibitive. Construction education departments usually are teaching-oriented and it is unrealistic to expect faculty to develop computer expertise without providing some release time. Most likely, the problem which confronts construction education faculty is one that is not understood by university administrators. For example, it is difficult to estimate the enormous amount of time required to become adept enough to develop graphical designs with a software package such as AUTOCAD.

Computer Hardware and Software Selection Faculty members in the construction education departments are often assigned the task of selecting computer equipment to be used in departmental coursework. Initially, this seems to be an appropriate mechanism for developing suitable workstations for faculty and student use. Many times, the faculty are not trained in computer use and are not given funds for travel or for hiring consultants. Providing more faculty support would help faculty to quickly make intelligent decisions and to avoid making mistakes.

In reviewing literature and in conducting telephone surveys of the computer equipment used by other construction education personnel, faculty members quickly become aware of the lack of consistency in information provided by other experts in the field. To further complicate the problem, computer vendors often make claims and provide unreliable information on product performance and portability. With limited reliable resources provided for decision-making, expectations for quick and cost-effective selections are unrealistic. Faculty members, in addition to their other responsibilities, have to spend many frustrating hours trying to make recommendations on how to best spend the small, and often inadequate, budgets provided for the task.

Construction Education External Funding Sources

While there are many established research departments at universities which are able to obtain funds from external funding sources, construction education departments have never been able to obtain much industrial support for their programs. At the national level, construction education programs do not fit into most of the funding agency guidelines. During the last few years, the National Science Foundation has made some movement toward construction education funding. However, few faculty members in these types of programs are experienced in preparing proposals or in developing other fund-raising programs. Neither have they developed the important personal contacts needed for success at these types of activities.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The methods used by universities for initiating computer use in construction education programs will be successful only if administrators recognize the large investment, in time and money, involved. However, university administrators usually fail to evaluate the many differences between computer applications in technical programs and those in other academic programs. Since the key to a successful computer implementation program lies in the faculty's ability to develop sufficient computer expertise. Time becomes the most important factor in the process. If no release time is provided, faculty members will continue to use those teaching methods which require the least amount of time. Simply buying equipment will not solve the problems associated with computer implementation.

To compound the problems which faculty members face in initiating computer use in their coursework, faculty members find themselves assigned the task of selecting the most appropriate hardware and software. Conducting surveys of other construction education computer systems and studying materials provided by computer vendors leads to confusion. When confronted with the small budgets provided for the task, many faculty members arrive at the conclusion that there is just not enough money to achieve the objectives and are tempted to abandon the entire project.

By their very nature, university systems work slowly and large amounts of time are required to obtain funds and complete projects. Once purchasing decisions have been made, there is usually a long waiting period as vendors submit bids for the specified hardware and software. The implementation of computer use in construction education programs will be a long term process an will require university administrators who understand the many problems associated with the project well enough to provide adequate support for construction education faculties. Otherwise, these projects are predetermined to fail.

University administrators must allow construction education faculties the flexibility to alter their plans as new and different systems are considered. After originally concluding that workstations based on PC configurations would be the most economical method for computer facility development and after investing in several such workstations, many educators realize that a mainframe, computer-based workstation cluster would be more economical in the long term. The ability to obtain multi-user licensing for most software and to set up communication networks provide many benefits over the stand-alone PC-based workstations. Another factor which leads one to consider the mainframe configuration is the slow response time supplied by even the most enhanced PC systems. Software such as AUTOCAD requires so much algorithm processing that response time is frustratingly slow.