Restructuring an Estimating and Scheduling Course


Restructuring an Estimating and Scheduling Course

Natasha W. McCurry, MBC and Ron G. McCurry
Auburn University
Auburn, AL

Teaching requires the instructor to evaluate what is most important for the student to learn during the allotted time as well as how to present that information to motivate the student to be more engaged and to retain that information better. Within the limitations of the accreditation standards of the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE) and the recommendations of each school’s Industry Advisory Council, the method of instruction is generally left to the instructor’s discretion. Based on a survey of ASC affiliated / ACCE accredited programs conducted during the fall semester of 2004, this paper explores the methods that are currently being taught in Advanced Estimating and Scheduling courses in construction education and relates those methods to the typical learning styles of construction students, as defined by previous ASC studies. The authors then present a detailed view of the modifications made to the teaching methods in the related course currently being taught at Auburn University in order to better address the various learning styles typically observed in construction students.

Keywords: Construction Education, Estimating, Teaching Styles


Introduction

Every student learns differently, based on socio-economic factors, gender, cultural background, work experience, and the list goes on. Likewise, every instructor teaches differently for many of the same reasons. Professors tend to teach more of what they enjoy, in a way that they are most comfortable, and subsequently, evaluate the students’ learning success in a way that is most convenient, objective, or time efficient. (Groccia, 2004) Although learning styles have been researched extensively for a number of years, some professors resist the movement to analyze their courses with respect to how the students learn best, what motivates the students to be actively engaged in the learning process, and to restructure both the delivery of the content and assessment methods to account for the known diversity.


Objective

The results of this research will allow the authors to evaluate the teaching styles and assessment criteria, as indicated by those experienced in delivering the contents of similar courses, and compare those teaching styles to the learning styles that have been presented in a previous ASC study. This will, in turn, serve as a basis for restructuring the delivery of the Project Controls II (Advanced Estimating / Theory of Scheduling) course at Auburn University to be taught more effectively by actively engaging the students through diverse teaching and learning methods which reward students with an assessment technique that is aligned according to the new delivery methods. This study will also serve as a basis by which other programs may evaluate their own delivery methods, compared to the aggregate responses of the survey.


Literature Review

Stein & Gotts’ study on CM learning preferences (2001) showed that, of the “73 undergraduate CM students” tested, “97.2% …enjoyed hands-on lab work, …82%... enjoyed computer work,” and only “62% …enjoyed lectures as a means of learning in the construction management courses.” In the same study, when asked questions about career preferences, “only 37%” indicated that they “liked the idea of being an estimator” - and only 16.4% of that 37% strongly agreed that estimating would be their career preference. Stein & Gotts’ study also identified 75.3% of the students tested to be of the Sensing-Judging (S-J) temperament and 9.6% as having the Sensing-Perceiving (S-P) temperament. Harvey Brightman (undated) has identified sensing students as those who prefer “organized, linear, structured lectures”; judging students as those who “reach for closure too quickly when analyzing cases”; and perceiving students as those who “are curious, adaptable, and spontaneous”. Brightman asserts that most undergraduate students are of the judging temperament, and can often benefit by being paired with students that will “play the devil’s advocate.” Although no data was available pertaining to construction students, per se, Brightman further notes that “about 65% of business students are extroverts, which learn by explaining to others.” While only in small percentages (2.7% and 1.4%, respectively), the Intuition-Feeling (N-F) and Intuition-Thinking (N-T) temperaments were also recognized in Stein & Gotts’ study. Knowing this, it is imperative that the course material is presented via methods that engage the student based on these temperaments. After all, “Learning is not so much a product of teaching as it is the activity and engagement of the learner.” (Groccia, 2004)

“What I hear, I forget; what I see, I remember; what I do, I understand.” - Chinese proverb. Learning is not a spectator sport. Students learn more by becoming actively engaged in the learning process. (Groccia, 2004) Strategies promoting active learning are as effective as lectures with respect to mastery of content, but superior to lecturers in developing students’ thinking and writing skills. (Gamson & Chickering, 1987)

While there will be some variation of learning styles from class to class, within the discipline of construction education it is assumed to be negligible and would therefore not necessitate continuous evaluation of the incoming student body each semester (or quarter), particularly since this would suggest that the course should be re-evaluated and restructured each time that it is taught. To do so would be impractical, especially since the instructor’s initial awareness of a particular class make-up is encountered on the first day of class – after the course and syllabus have been developed. It is, however, advantageous to administer a simple exercise on the first day of class that allows the student to reveal information to the instructor that may help the instructor to tailor as much of the course as is still flexible to the group of students’ individual needs and learning preferences. This simple exercise may be in the form of a basic, informal, writing assignment that requests the following items in the form of an educational autobiography (adapted from Groccia, 2004): values, where they are from, expectations they have for the class (including grade), extracurricular involvement, employment status, construction experience (including specific strengths/weaknesses), computer experience (including computerized estimating applications), learning styles, specific construction interests (sustainability, specialty subcontracting, sales, etc.), construction career goals (Superintendent, Project Manager, Estimator, etc.), and anything else they want you to know about them.

Due to the importance placed on the Industry Advisory Council, the authors conducted interviews of firms that continually pursue the graduates of this program in an effort to confirm those aspects which are currently being taught well, and to identify areas that can be improved upon. The results indicated that the industry is more interested in the students being well-grounded in the fundamentals of estimating and scheduling, rather than being able to utilize a computerized program. The idea that “any computer whiz can work a computer, but in order to produce a reliable estimate, one must fully understand the basics” seemed to be unanimous. However, the industry said “some exposure” to computerized estimating is valued; and that the preferred programs are Excel spreadsheets and Timberline. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the need for students to be able to understand the concepts behind productivity and units rather than relying on Means, or other sources of cost data. Suggestions were made to abandon the mock bid exercise and implement a small-group field trip (i.e. groups of three at a time) to visit a large general contracting firm so that the student can be present in the bid room during a live bid. Industry feedback echoed the results of Stein & Gotts’ study with respect to the number of students that desire a long-term career in estimating, although the ratio quoted by the industry was lower – about one in ten. They went on to say that the methods that are currently being implemented to teach this course do not give a realistic perspective of how interesting, fun, and rewarding the estimation profession is. This supports the idea that changes in our delivery must be considered.


Method

The authors administered a survey (Appendix A) via e-mail to professors teaching similar courses at other construction programs. A list of potential respondents was gathered and compiled using the ASC (Associated Schools of Construction) and ACCE (American Council for Construction Education) websites. The survey instrument is described as follows:

Conceptual Definition of the Variables

Alfred State	North Lake College
Arizona State University	Northern Kentucky University
Auburn University	Oregon State
Brigham Young University	Purdue University
Central Connecticut State University	University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Clarkson University	University of Denver
Clemson University	University of Maine at Orono
East Carolina University	University of Washington
Kansas State	Virginia Tech
Michigan State University	Weber State University
North Dakota State	Western Carolina University


Due to the differences in courses from program to program, the entire contents covered in this survey may not have been applicable to a single course in other construction programs. For this reason, some universities replied with surveys partially completed (i.e. scheduling portion only or estimating portion only).


Results of the Survey

Cognitive Development

The survey results show that, on average, instructors lecture for nearly an equal amount of time (35%) that students spend on in-class labs (39%). Presentations, whether collaborative efforts or individual projects account for an average of 14% of class time, while case studies and guest speakers trail at 8% and 4%, respectively (see Figure 1). The average number of students in a typical estimating and scheduling class, respectively, is 32 and 33. Survey responses indicated that these class sizes range from a low of 14 students to a high of 75 students, which can have a significant impact on the instructor’s chosen presentation methods.

Figure 1. Proportions of Class Time Allocated for Each Teaching Method


Estimating Software

The data collected suggests that as primary software packages, Timberline and Excel - when combined with its Microsoft Access counterpart - are equally represented in the academic setting (see Figure 2). The use of Timberline and Excel in an academic setting is not surprising, since these tend to be the most widely used in industry. WinEst has been implemented in some programs, while other programs focus solely on the fundamentals of estimating, requiring the students to delay computer applied estimating until they enter the workforce. Nearly all of the responding programs that utilize estimating software use it for quantity take-off and pricing, and require the students to modify the pricing database with respect to local wages, material rates, etc. Approximately 44% of the programs expose their students to on-screen take-off methods. Only 38% of the respondents introduce their students to the ability of software to export estimating data directly to scheduling software, and even fewer (13%) to an accounting software. For secondary software, 24% of the respondents had none. For those that did, Excel was the preferred choice (19%), with Timberline and On-Screen Take-Off in an equal second (14%). Heavy Bid followed with 9%, while CostWorks, Earthworks, MC2, and WinEst account for only about 5% each (see Figure 3).

Figure 2. Primary Estimating Software of Construction Education Programs

Figure 3. Secondary Estimating Software of Construction Education Programs


Estimating (Other)

Most programs address conceptual estimating in one form or another – primarily square-foot and volume methods. About 56% introduce value-engineering concepts, whereas only one program discusses the estimating impacts introduced by LEED certification (green building/sustainable construction). The R.S. Means book was the preferred reference for Construction Cost Data; but others identified Walker’s, Richardson’s, and collecting their own data from local industry to overcome the limitations presented in the other sources. Eighty-eight percent of professors require their students to identify their own pricing line items for their assignments.

Scheduling

Activity on Node (AON) was the preferred theory and application taught for scheduling; and is taught by 100% of the respondents. Activity on Arrow (AOA) is taught by only 58% of the respondents. Cost-loading the schedule was considered “Very Important” or “Important” by 14 out of 19 responses. For “crashing the schedule”, “Very Important” and “Important” accounted for only 9 out of the 19 responses.

Grading

About 84% of the tests are based on manual application and calculation, which is in line with the industry’s advice to focus on the fundamentals. Most (66.6%) did not utilize juries for students to defend their projects. Figure 4 shows that the items accounting for portions of a student’s grade focused primarily on tests and group projects. Tests (including Final Exam) account for a total of 41% of a student’s grade, on average.

Figure 4. Average Proportions Allocated in Assessment of Grades


About the Professor

Based on the personal data of the respondents, 30% of the respondents are tenured, and another 45% are on tenure track. The data collected represents, on average, approximately 9 years of teaching experience and approximately 13 years of industry experience, per respondent. On average, respondents have taught for approximately 8 semesters (or 14.5 quarters, for the three that are associated with the quarter system).


Assessment

Einstein: “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” …But students expect that it will count if they are going to spend time doing it; and their motivation is often “How much does it count?” “Assessment – or evaluation – of students has a rather big impact on learning.” (Van Hattum-Janssen, et al., 2004, p. 291) “Assessment is vitally important to students and exerts a major influence on their approach to learning. Assessment procedures should therefore promote and reward the achievement of desired learning outcomes. Teaching, learning, and assessment are inextricably linked.” (Hargreaves, 1997, p. 403) It is not the authors’ intent to produce a numerical analysis to be used in structuring the grading process; but rather to note that if we are inclined to teach to all learning styles – we should consider structuring our grading strategies with the same proportions.


Application

The authors utilized the results of this survey, in combination with the previous studies on learning styles, to restructure Auburn University’s Project Controls II (Advanced Estimating / Theory of Scheduling) course at Auburn University, which was previously taught as a lecture/lab course in which the students performed the fundamental requirements of basic take-off procedures for a second semester. The students were not required to participate in any collaborative learning experiences, perform any research to compare theory to actual industry pricing and applications, scope out their own divisions, or select their own Means’ line items. Earthworks and MC² were the only computer applications to which the students were introduced.

While students enter the course well-prepared with a rigorous, rigid approach to the fundamentals of estimating from Project Controls I (Fundamentals of Estimating), it is the experience of the authors that, upon entering a second course in estimating, students feel that they have already mastered the estimating procedures of quantity take-off, pricing, and bidding, so they are not as easily engaged in the lecture/lab method of instruction. Consequently, it becomes even more necessary to structure the delivery of the course with more variety as a motivational effort.

Based on Stein & Gotts’ study, the majority of the construction management students that were tested preferred hands-on lab work, followed by computer work and lectures, respectively. Their study also revealed that few students “liked the idea of being an estimator” - and fewer of them strongly preferred estimating as a career. Based on suggestions from members of the industry advisory council, the low interest in an estimating career may be a result of the delivery methods employed to educate the students. Consequently, the authors made an assumption that the results of both Stein & Gotts’ study and Brightman’s study are typical of any student in any construction program, and combined that information with the survey data to make informed decisions regarding teaching styles that may best align with the learning styles of the students. This intent led to a course designed to increase student involvement in the delivery process as a means of collaborative learning, to increase the opportunities of exposure to additional computer software without sacrificing the fundamentals, and to decrease the quantity of lectures while increasing the quality to encourage students to think critically.

Stein & Gotts’ study also identified the majority of the students tested to be of the Sensing temperament. Understanding that Harvey Brightman (undated) has identified these students as preferring “organized, linear, structured lectures”, the authors were careful not to decrease the quantity of lectures significantly; but to incorporate activities that forced the students to synthesize information more effectively. Considering Construction Management students to be business students, the authors noted Brightman’s assertion that most “business students are extroverts”, and “learn by explaining to others.” For this reason, the authors implemented a teach/learn exercise by which student groups took on the responsibility of a small portion of the teaching, which would require more in-depth study by each group, and would be supplemented by the instructor for any information that may have been omitted or overlooked by the students. The student groups are determined by the instructor, based on personal autobiographies submitted by the students which reveal information about their construction experience, temperaments, and learning styles, to ensure that each group has strengths in organizational and technical aspects, as well as presentation skills.

The following is a list of considerations for presentation of course objectives by aligning teaching styles with learning styles:

	Lecture (including Overhead and Computer Graphic Presentations) - This appears to be an adequate teaching method for a reasonably significant portion of the allocated class time, since the MBTI evaluation performed by Stein & Gotts in their study on CM learning preferences (2001, p. 46) showed that 62% of the students surveyed enjoyed lecture as means to learning in CM courses. This is reaffirmed by the nature of the “Sensing” temperament, which indicates a propensity toward desiring structured, organized, and linear lectures. The lecturer should be careful, however, to address the “big picture” (Brightman, undated) for the benefit of the “intuitive” students in addition to the details that will be provided for the “sensing” students.
	Lab – This form of instruction should be considered more heavily than Lecture, since the results of Stein & Gotts’ study indicate a much greater desire to learn by the hands-on process (97.2%). Nevertheless, some lecture is necessary to make the labs comfortable for most of the personality types – especially “Thinking” students.
	Case Studies – This method of instruction is likely to be best received by the “Perceiving” temperament, since they are adaptable and spontaneous.
	Group Projects – This method is preferred by the “Feeling” students and addresses collaboration within groups which may be randomly selected; but, according to Groccia, the selection process may also be dictated by instructor, based on students’ experiential and cultural diversity, learning style, cognitive style, background, culture, gender, age, physical and learning ability/disability. These differences affect academic performance; and cognitive diversity leads to superior quality group work. (Groccia, 2004) Within this teaching style, one may also consider a project in which the students are providing pre-construction services to a client and require executive summaries as a form of enhancing writing skills for those who are not as strong in the analytical and presentation arenas.
	Teach/Learn Initiatives – This method of instruction allows a group of students (particularly extroverts) to learn by explaining to other students (introverts, or others).
	Service Learning – This is a perfect approach to the student’s desire to fulfill the “hands-on” learning. In the 1998 ASC proceedings, Senior (1998) noted that Time magazine had published a study indicating that within a group of students involved in service learning, 75% said they learned more during community service than in a typical class. (Senior, 1998) In groups, this will cater to the learning needs of “Feeling” students.
	Field Trips – This is a learning experience that is non-threatening to all personality types; but is especially enjoyed by the curious and adaptable “perceiving” students. Local industry representatives have offered to allow Auburn University’s students to participate in an actual bid day, in lieu of a “mock” bid, so that students get the “real” experience.
	Mock-Bids – This type of teaching provides a learning experience that is helpful for all learning styles although it is not comfortable for any of them.
	Guest Speakers – This approach allows the instructor to provide students with in-depth insight by industry experts, without encroaching on the comfort zone of any learning style. In the author’s experience, most students appreciate the “break” from the usual.


While it may not be possible to implement all of these methods, diversity within the delivery certainly provides a better opportunity to reach more learning types.



Conclusion

Two group projects have been implemented in order to encourage collaborative learning as well as teamwork – an estimating project/presentation and a scheduling project. Rather than the instructor providing a scope sheet with Means line numbers and allowing the students to simply measure, count, and price, each group of students is responsible for scoping a division of a specific construction project, identifying errors/omissions and making reasonable assumptions, and contacting industry professionals from that discipline to compare local pricing to that of R.S. Means. The students are required to present this information to the rest of the class so that everyone may use the same assumptions and line items for that division. They are also required to present three bids (some of which must significantly differ in scope) for the work defined in their division. These bids are potentially used in the mock bid day later in the semester. After completing the estimate, and before closing out the bid recapitulation sheet, each group of students is required to construct a schedule (hand-drawn logic diagram), complete with early and late start and finish dates, float calculations, and critical path to determine the duration for which various resources will be required. This schedule then serves as a basis for the duration that must be accounted for with respect to various items in the Job Overhead worksheet, which then enables them to finalize their bid.

While Earthworks and MC² are still utilized, the students are also given exposure to On-Screen Take-Off. Industry advisors have discouraged the authors in the practice of teaching students to modify the pricing databases of any of these programs, since the chief estimators hold responsibility for the final bid price. Thus, pricing is completed in Excel, based on the quantity take-off from the computer programs.

Modifications were also made to the assessment process in order to align the grading rubric proportionally with the various learning and teaching methods. The former grading rubric, associated with lecture/lab only, included 20% estimating project folders, 8% mock bid day, and 72% tests (40% standard and 32% final exam), which may have been a disadvantage to students who do not take tests well. The new grading rubric consists of a 15% teach/learn collaborative estimating project, a 15% group project for scheduling, 10% estimating project folders, 5% class participation/professionalism, 5% mock bid day, and 50% tests (24% standard and 26% final exam).

Since the implementation of these modifications took place, the authors have noticed a significant increase in the interest and overall attitudes of the students. Because the implementation occurred this semester, no data is available concerning the effect on students’ grades; however, students are much more engaged in the learning experience.


References

Brightman, H. J., (undated) Georgia State University Master Teaching Program: On Learning Styles. Adapted by J. E. Groccia, 2004.

Gamson, Z., & Chickering, A. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39: 7, 5-10. Adapted by J. E. Groccia, 2004.

Groccia, J.E. (2004). New Faculty Scholars Course Design Fall Retreat. Unpublished Educational Manual.

Hargreaves, D. J. (1997). Student learning and assessment are inextricably linked. European Journal of Engineering Education, 22, 403.

Senior, B. A. (1998). Service-Learning: A Win-Win Resource for Construction Education. Proceedings of the 34^th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction. 55.

Stein, J. & Gotts, V. (2001). Analysis of Selected Learning Preferences of Construction Management Students. Proceedings of the 37^th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction. 41-47.

Van Hattum-Janssen, N.; Pacheco, J. A.; & Vasconcelos, R. M. (2004). European Journal of Engineering Education, 29 (2), 291-298.

Appendix A

Survey Instrument

The objective of this survey is to gather information from estimating and scheduling professors of other ASC/ACCE
affiliated construction programs in order to assess the diverse methods of teaching to:
I. Address a variety of cognitive development styles,
II. Ensure that the computerized estimating/theory of scheduling class in Building Science at Auburn University meets and exceeds the standards as taught by other accredited institutions with respect to computer applications, coursework, etc.
III. Develop a new, innovative strategy for teaching so that the students will obtain a higher standard of learning that will benefit the students (and their future employers) by improving collaborative efforts, efficiency, and accuracy.

If you have taught a similar course for several quarters/semesters, the responses to the information requested below should be based on your latest revisions, which would reflect the best arrangement based on your experience. Thank you.

Cognitive Development

1. What percentage of class time is spent incorporating the following teaching methods in the classroom?
(Check one in each of the following (if “other”, please specify approximate percentage):

0%

1-10%

11-20%

21-30%

31-40%

Other

a. Lecture

b. Presentations

c. Labs

d. Case Studies

e. Guest Speakers from Industry

f. What is the average number of students in a typical estimating class?

g. What is the average number of students in a typical scheduling class?

Estimating Software

Timberline

MC²

Other (specify)

2. What is the primary software used for teaching estimating applications?

All

Other (specify all that apply)

3. What CSI Divisions are taught using the software stated above?

No

Yes

If yes, name product:

4. Is a secondary software application taught?

QTO Only

QTO & Pricing

5. Is the software used for quantity take-off only, or is pricing also performed by the software?

No

Yes

6. If pricing is performed within the software, do you require students to modify the pricing database in order to factor in variables such as location (with respect to wage/material rates, etc.)?

No

Yes

If yes, name product:

7. Do you use software that allows quantity take-off to be performed directly from the screen and/or CAD/AutoCAD drawing files?

No

Yes

If yes, name product:

8. Is the student introduced to the software’s capability to export data and import it directly …into scheduling software?

…into an accounting software?

Estimating (Other)

9. Are the following types of estimating addressed in your course? If yes, how many class sessions would be spent on each of the following?

No

Yes

If yes, # of Classes:

a. Square-foot Methods

b. Volume Methods

c. Conceptual Estimating

d. Green/Sustainable Estimating

e. Value Engineering

R.S.Means

Other (specify)

10. What source reference is utilized for construction cost data?

No

Yes

11. Is the student responsible for identifying pricing line items for each Assignment? (If no, it is assumed that this information is given to maintain class consistency.)

Scheduling (From the perspective of an introductory level scheduling course – not computerized)

No

Yes

12. Do you teach the theory and/or application of AOA Logic Diagrams?

No

Yes

13. Do you teach the theory and/or application of AON Logic Diagrams?

AOA

AON

Equal

14. More emphasis is placed on:

Very

Somewhat

Not

Important

Important

Important

Important

15. How much importance does your program place on cost-loading the schedule?

16. How much importance does your program place on the theory/application of crashing (accelerating) the schedule?

Grading

How to apply and calculate the information manually.

Whether or not the student can show that they can effectively utilize the computer applications.

17. Tests are based on the students’ knowledge of:

No

Yes

18. Are juries held to allow students to defend their (group or individual) projects?

19. Do any of the projects require professional presentations by the group or individual?

20. Please indicate the various items that account for any portion of a student’s grade, along with the quantity of each and total percentage of points that this item (these items) account(s) for:

Quantity

Percent of Average

Homework:

Group Projects:

Individual Projects:

Quizzes:

“Mock” Bid Day:

Tests

Final Exam

About the Professor

21. Name of College or University:

No

Yes

22. Are you tenured?

23. If not, are you on tenure-track?

Teaching?

In Industry?

24. How many years of experience….

Semesters

Quarters

25. How many times have you taught this class?

Any other comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.