Student Approaches and Performance in Element Sequencing Tasks Using 2D and Augmented Reality Formats

Abstract

In civil and construction engineering education research, a focus has been on using 3D models to support students’ design comprehension. Despite this trend, the predominant mode of design communication in the industry relies on 2D plans and specifications, which typically supersede other modes of communication. Rather than focusing on the presentation of less common 3D content as an input to support students’ understanding of a design, this paper explores more common 2D inputs, but compares different visualization formats of student output in two educational interventions. In the first intervention, students document a construction sequence for wood-framed elements in a 2D worksheet format. In the second, students work with the same wood-framed design, but document their sequence through an augmented reality (AR) format where their physical interactions move full-scale virtual elements as if they were physically constructing the wood frame. Student approaches and performance were analyzed using qualitative attribute coding of video, audio, and written documentation of the student experience. Overall, results showed that the 2D worksheet format was simple to implement and was not mentally demanding to complete, but often corresponded with a lack of critical checks and a lack of mistake recognition from the students. The AR approach challenged students more in terms of cognitive load and completion rates but showed the potential for facilitating mistake recognition and self-remediation through visualization. These results suggest that when students are tasked with conceptualizing construction sequences from 2D documentation, the cognitive challenges associated with documenting a sequence in AR may support their recognition of their own mistakes in ways that may not be effectively supported through 2D documentation as an output for documenting and planning a construction sequence. The results presented in this paper provide insights on student tendencies, behaviors, and perceptions related to defining construction sequences from 2D documentation in order for educators to make informed decisions regarding the use of similar learning activities to prepare their students for understanding the 2D design documents used in industry.

Critical analysis of the use of extended reality XR for training in civil engineering

“…On the other hand, applications are able to deliver visualisations of nonexistent buildings and new projects in existing environments where a project is located. They are also able to deliver more awareness of the relationship of the components of the structure and the phases of the work through the four-dimensional (4D) BIM model, providing a better understanding of the spatial movement of equipment, materials, and placement of components in the work, resulting in a more optimised design for the operation phase [47,51,62,63,81,86,94,101,107]. For structural analysis, the applications provide visualisation capabilities for structural buckling according to the mode of vibration, knowledge and spatial visualisation skills, and visualisation of deformations, support reactions, load transfer between elements, and internal forces in different types of structures for different types and load combinations [33,93].…”

Assessing Priorities in Engineering Design Through Augmented Reality

“…The task the students were given were aimed at resembling a typical carpentry task that one might encounter on a construction site, and the results showed that even though the students who had to use 2D design finished faster than their peers, their design was more prone to errors and did not meet the required dimensional details. In contrast, their AR colleagues had fewer errors and saw the exercise as an opportunity to develop hands-on skills [26].…”

“…In civil and construction engineering, AR was used to examine how students could use design plans to understand the sequence of constructing a wall in a typical residential building. This experiment had two groups of students, where the first group recorded their results on a 2D worksheet the other group used AR [26]. The task the students were given were aimed at resembling a typical carpentry task that one might encounter on a construction site, and the results showed that even though the students who had to use 2D design finished faster than their peers, their design was more prone to errors and did not meet the required dimensional details.…”