Towards greater integration of building information modeling in the architectural design curriculum: A longitudinal case study

Abstract

Building information modeling (BIM) has been a disruptive development in the global architecture, engineering, construction and operations (AECO) industry. While architecture schools have sought to integrate BIM into their curricula, most current pedagogical approaches and lessons are derived from engineering and construction management perspectives. There is a scarcity of investigations to monitor outcomes, reveal difficulties and articulate strategies for this context. This research explores how to better incorporate BIM into the architectural design curriculum. It does so by gathering pedagogical strategies, redesigning the curriculum and taking action in one of Thailand’s top architecture schools. The study reveals that treating BIM as a discrete topic in the architectural curriculum – where BIM is not so much the main focus, is misunderstood and is alleged to jeopardize creativity – is ineffective. Instead, infusing BIM learning modules throughout the existing curriculum structure, core design studio and supporting areas allows for the consistent and concurrent development of BIM skills and architectural knowledge. The concepts and practice examples developed in this research, along with feedback received and challenges met, constitute a valuable resource for further BIM-integrated architecture curriculum development. Future studies are recommended to improve BIM learning and advance the full potential of BIM in the education of next-generation architects.

Keywords

Architectural and engineering education building information modeling building information modeling education building information modeling curriculum pedagogical design

Building information modeling (BIM) has transformed design, construction, operating and maintenance processes throughout a building’s lifecycle by harnessing the power of machine-readable building information models (NIBS, 2007). It is considered the most disruptive recent development in the global architecture, engineering, construction and operations (AECO) industry due to its impact on professional practices, technologies, procedures and the body of knowledge (Aghimien et al., 2021; Eastman et al., 2011). BIM facilitates a more coordinated, innovative and productive project delivery process than has conventionally been achieved amid AECO industry fragmentation (Elmualim and Gilder, 2014). It enables digitization at every stage of a building’s lifecycle and offers novel procedures for key managerial activities (Gholizadeh et al., 2018), such as multidisciplinary design decision-making (Singh et al., 2011), construction drawing generation (Nath et al., 2015), construction cost management (Lu et al., 2018), potential waste minimization (Laovisutthichai et al., 2022), prefabrication scheduling (Li et al., 2017) and facility management (Pärn et al., 2017). As a result, graduates with BIM talents are highly sought-after (Casasayas et al., 2021).

Increasingly, architectural design schools are recognizing the value of BIM. Not only is it considered a process that students should be familiar with given its widespread application (Becerik-Gerber et al., 2011); BIM is also seen as an instrument that can alleviate difficulties in teaching the traditional design studio and related courses that arise from rapid change in the industry and distance between the classroom and real-world contexts (Masdéu and Fuses, 2017). Furthermore, architecture students must acquire knowledge on topics ranging from human behaviour to laws and regulations, feasibility, climate, building systems, materials, construction methods, waste minimization, deconstruction and so on (Lueth, 2008). This undertaking has become even more bewildering with the COVID-19 pandemic widening the gap between learners and knowledge origins – for example, production lines, construction sites and waste sorting facilities (Varma and Jafri, 2020). BIM, with its capability of simulating the real-world construction environment, can help to close this gap by familiarizing students with building components and construction processes before they enter professional practice (Hu, 2019; Lu et al., 2013).

Perceiving BIM as a means of satisfying the AECO industry’s present and future demands and mitigating the limitations of the classroom, many practitioners, researchers and educators have called for a more comprehensive integration of BIM into the curriculum (Becerik-Gerber et al., 2011; Berwald, 2008; Elmualim and Gilder, 2014; Suwal and Singh, 2018). Several pedagogical approaches have emerged in support of the potential of BIM. For instance, many institutions teach BIM through lectures and class discussion in a stand-alone compulsory or elective course, focusing on BIM software functions and its benefits (Abdelhameed, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2013). Several schools allow for optional BIM use in design studios and other courses, providing students with hands-on opportunities to learn BIM programs (Clayton et al., 2010). In higher-level classes, advanced capabilities and applications of BIM, such as energy performance analysis, cost estimation and project scheduling, may be taught (Clevenger et al., 2010). Shelbourn et al. (2017), meanwhile, recommend BIM learning through collaborative activities among interdisciplinary students.

These pedagogical approaches, however, are mainly proposed for stand-alone courses that do not align with the overall curriculum structure (Clevenger et al., 2010). Moreover, most originate from engineering and construction management institutions with curriculum structures and goals that diverge from those of architectural design schools. Thus, the strategies, challenges and lessons of these approaches may not be applicable to the architectural curriculum context. In addition, prior studies of these pedagogical approaches have been conducted mainly through literature reviews, questionnaires and interviews. In the context of the BIM learning journey through the architectural curriculum, there is a lack of investigation into whether educational goals are delivered and what real-world classroom challenges arise – most importantly, to gain insights for future curriculum development (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016; Becerik-Gerber et al., 2011; Casasayas et al., 2021). In the absence of these insights, it is unclear whether BIM should be elaborated separately in the architectural curriculum structure or established as a new area (Shelbourn et al., 2017), making BIM-integrated architectural curriculum development burdensome for instructors (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016).

This action research, therefore, explores how to better integrate BIM into the existing architectural design curriculum structure as a foundation for future curriculum development. The research objective is twofold. The first aim is to profoundly understand the BIM learning journey in the current architectural school curriculum and eventually to ideate a more effective pedagogical approach for this unique context. The second is to reflect the effects, challenges and lessons derived from full involvement in real-world settings.

Building information modeling

BIM is a phrase that describes all processes supported by the power of digital and machine-readable building information (Eastman et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2014). This digital transformation has brought numerous advantages to the AECO industry. For instance, BIM improves design quality by making a wealth of building information available for visualization, performance analysis, simulation, communication and output generation (Azhar et al., 2012; Chen and Lu, 2019). It also facilitates construction workflow and improves project cost efficiency by enabling automatic clash detection analysis, which involves visualizing each critical clash, information sharing to explore resolutions and updating a model in one platform (Azhar, 2011). Although BIM may require additional time and effort in the early design stages of a project, it prevents errors and reworks onsite, shortens the construction period and significantly improves overall project performance compared to a traditional non-BIM project (Lu et al., 2015). Due to its widely propagated benefits, those with BIM knowledge and skills are in high demand in the AECO industry (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016; Casasayas et al., 2021).

Pedagogical approaches for building information modeling (BIM) in AECO schools

Pedagogical approaches developed to support BIM integration in AECO education are shown in Table 1. Many schools have transitioned from computer-aided design (CAD) to BIM, including Montana State University in 2006 (Berwald, 2008) and California State University in 2007 (Gier, 2008). In introductory courses, BIM is typically treated as just a computational tool in one stand-alone or in several subjects, while in higher-level courses BIM and its advanced applications are taught (Denzer and Hedges, 2008). However, this approach is unable to fulfil industry needs and expectations (Casasayas et al., 2021; Wu and Issa, 2014).

Table 1.

Examples of pedagogical approaches for BIM.

No	Existing pedagogical approach	References
1	BIM concept and software introduction lecture and discussion	Ahmed et al. (2013); Barison and Santos (2010); Berwald (2008); Gier (2008)
2	BIM process practice in various courses	Ahmed et al. (2013); Barison and Santos (2010); Berwald (2008)
3	Project-based and experience-based learning	Abdelhameed (2018); Clayton et al. (2010); Jin et al. (2018); Woo (2006)
4	Collaboration with other disciplines	Ahmed et al. (2013); Barison and Santos (2010); Shelbourn et al. (2017)
5	Advanced BIM applications – e.g., building energy and waste management performance analysis	Clevenger et al. (2010); Abdelhameed (2018)
6	University–industry partnership	Barison and Santos (2011); Chen et al. (2020)
7	BIM-enabled teaching modules	Clevenger et al. (2010); Hu (2019); Yan et al. (2011)

To overcome these drawbacks and improve students’ learning experience, a strategic partnership between academics and industry has been suggested (Barison and Santos, 2011; Chen et al., 2020). According to this strategy, experienced practitioners cooperate with educators to identify intended learning outcomes, outline course instruction and timetables, produce teaching materials, design student assignments and organize workshops, creating a win–win among AECO parties (Chen et al., 2020). The synthesis of theoretical knowledge and practical skills helps students gain a holistic understanding of professional practice and BIM use while mitigating BIM educator inadequacy. Meanwhile, the AECO industry benefits from graduates able to meet the emerging demand for BIM practitioners who can help resolve the industry’s challenges (Chen et al., 2020; Pikas et al., 2013).

In other literature, Clevenger et al. (2010) discuss BIM-enabled teaching modules, while Yan et al. (2011) harness BIM visualization capability and gamification to enhance the BIM learning curve. Hu (2019) finds that BIM can help construction management students understand building material specifications and processes. In replicating a real-world built environment, BIM can stimulate learning motivation and develop architectural knowledge and skills through a transformative experience like that offered by other pedagogical tools, such as games, social network platforms and virtual reality (Alizadehsalehi et al., 2019; Amory et al., 1999; Rinaldo et al., 2011). Here, the phrase ‘pedagogical tools’ refers to assistive devices, implements, or items to serve diverse educational purposes, such as enhancing course administration, resolving classrooms’ difficulties, increasing involvement and communication, and supporting curriculum and course revitalization (Rinaldo et al., 2011). However, the realization of BIM-enabled teaching modules faces many challenges, including a lack of case study examples, detailed explanation and classroom insight (Clevenger et al., 2010; Hu, 2019; Yan et al., 2011).

It can be seen that existing pedagogical approaches for BIM have not yet been gathered and aligned with the entire study plan (Clevenger et al., 2010), and that most derive from engineering and construction management schools. Strategies, challenges and lessons in other contexts, including architectural design schools, have rarely been investigated.

Existing architectural curriculum structure

Architectural education aims to develop students’ knowledge, attitudes, skills and values as a preparation for professional design practice (Nicol and Pilling, 2000). To achieve this, many schools adopt the architectural education system recommended by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Architects Registration Board (ARB) as a foundation for curriculum development (Royal Institute of British Architects and Architect Registration Board, 1997). The core of this system is the architectural design studio, where real-world design situations, project conditions and designers’ roles are simulated (Lueth, 2008; Schön, 1987). This active learning method allows students to face design practice challenges, understand social, cultural, technological and other dimensions, bring together knowledge from different disciplines, propose resolutions and eventually construct their own knowledge from experience (Nicol and Pilling, 2000). Apart from architectural design practice, schools provide instruction in four other areas: 1) the cultural context of architecture, 2) communication skills, 3) professional studies and management and 4) environmental design, construction and architectural technologies (Royal Institute of British Architects and Architect Registration Board, 1997). While this architectural education system has developed over time, the core design studio and its supportive areas have remain key components of the architectural curriculum until now (Clayton et al., 2010; Masdéu and Fuses, 2017; Saghafi, 2020).

In this curriculum structure, BIM has been taught in a stand-alone course (Ahmed et al., 2013) and integrated into a core design studio (Clayton et al., 2010), but has not yet been well-positioned in the entire architectural curriculum structure (Berwald, 2008). Although several pathways towards greater integration have been proposed, such as elaborating advanced BIM usage in upper-level courses and establishing it as a new area in the existing curriculum, case studies validating these approaches in real-world classrooms are lacking (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016; Casasayas et al., 2021; Shelbourn et al., 2017). To revitalize the architectural design curriculum through the increased integration of BIM, educators require not just an educational approach but also insights, challenges and lessons from reality (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016).

Research methods

This study adopted a pragmatic philosophical position to conduct participatory action research. Pragmatist thinking focuses on dynamic relationships between the actions of humans in the real world and their results (Goldkuhl, 2012). It is an alternative paradigm for qualitative research, in which constructive knowledge is formed and emphasized via the iteration cycle of empathizing, ideating and, most importantly, intervening in actual settings rather than just making observations in interpretivism (Goldkuhl, 2012; Stringer, 2008). Aside from its knowledge contribution, this approach can constitute practical contributions and resolve real-world issues. Through full involvement in a phenomenon as changers, researchers face real hurdles, gather new insights, develop a profound understanding of a situation and its compositions, and eventually propose practicable and feasible resolutions (Hult and Lennung, 1980). The results can also be employed as a basis for plan modifications and drafting next steps (Lewin, 1946). Due to its fruitful benefits, this research approach is widespread in educational studies as a means of evaluating, redesigning and developing novel curricula and revitalizing a classroom environment (Stringer, 2008). In the AECO context, it is also regarded as a systematic, reliable and rigorous research design to improve professional practice procedures and artefacts – for example, refinement of the decision-making process (Azhar et al., 2010) and architectural design solutions for potential waste minimization (Laovisutthichai et al., 2020). This research was conducted in three stages (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The three-stage participatory action research approach.

Empathizing

The first stage of this research was a manual review of the literature aimed at understanding BIM development in architectural education and gathering strategies and recommendations. The manual review is an exhaustive and prolonged process whereby researchers examine each and every piece of literature by hand before deciding whether to include, categorize or index it (Roitblat et al., 2010). Although it requires great effort and has been accused of biases and low productivity (Grossman and Cormack, 2010), the broad range of reading can help readers update their knowledge base and acquire a plethora of ideas in the area, which is the goal of this stage (Wee and Banister, 2016). In this study, the authors searched databases including the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar using the keywords ‘Building Information Model’, ‘BIM education’, ‘BIM in architectural and engineering education’, ‘BIM in construction school’, ‘BIM as a pedagogical tool’ and ‘BIM pedagogical design’. In this way, a number of studies were found. To ensure the relevance to this research purpose, the studies found were screened manually according to two criteria: they had to be in English and they had to relate to BIM in AECO pedagogical design.

Ideating

In this second stage, a novel pedagogical approach was developed from a variety of recommended strategies from prior research and an in-depth understanding of existing BIM education. To enhance this process, the screened studies were firstly analyzed and coded line-by-line to highlight pedagogical strategies, guidance and suggestions for BIM education. This coding approach is typically used to extract and index key terms or variables from a large amount of qualitative data to organize researchers’ thinking and draw up a framework about the main topic (Gibbs, 2018). It involves identifying passages of text or other data, labelling, consolidating passages if they refer to the same idea or category and recording the index. A list of pedagogical strategies for BIM with detailed explanations was the expected outcome to be used as a firm foundation for ideating a novel approach.

Then, the researchers and educators extensively discussed the existing educational challenges and brainstormed practicable resolutions. It was indeed a challenging task to generate a novel educational approach in line with the case study context. They followed several recommendations, aligned some educational strategies with the case study curriculum structure and designed ‘three learning modules’. The implementation plan for taking action in the next stage was also created.

Action research

In the action stage, the researchers examined an attempt to incorporate BIM into the curriculum of the Department of Architecture at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. The BIM learning journey throughout the 5-years curriculum was designed to help students 1) familiarize themselves with the BIM process and its advanced applications, and 2) understand architecture and complex building systems integration in particular through a three-dimensional digital model.

These intended learning outcomes can be assessed by various methods, including examinations, course assignments, students’ reflections and peer assessments (Abdirad and Dossick, 2016; Becerik-Gerber et al., 2012). Here, they were first evaluated with final-year assignments testing students’ abilities to construct a building model in BIM and explain high-rise building systems integration. However, this assessment method was based mainly on the educators’ perspectives. Thus, a series of semi-structured interviews with BIM-integrated curriculum graduates was conducted as a second assessment process (see Table 2). This qualitative data-gathering method is typically adopted to realize how participants perceive a particular topic from their own perspective and surroundings through a series of open-ended questions and prompts (Given, 2008; Lamont and Swidler, 2014). In this research, it was used to understand students’ learning experience, gather feedback and reconfirm the results of the final-year assignment. 10 students were interviewed, above the minimum number of six (Guest et al., 2006).

Table 2.

Interview questions.

No	Question
1	Did you register for the computer-aided design innovation course (2501373 COM AID DSGN INNOV)? Why did you register/not register for this course?
2	Apart from the course provided by the faculty, how did you learn BIM? Did you learn BIM from your classmates, books, online tutorials, or external self-paid courses? Please explain the reasons for selecting these additional learning methods
3	Did you use BIM in the architectural design studio, building technology and construction, or other courses? Why did you choose to use/not to use BIM in the classes? Which software did you use in addition to/instead of BIM?
4	What are the major benefits of learning and using BIM?
5	How did you feel about your BIM learning journey during the BIM-integrated curriculum? To what extent do you agree that this curriculum helps students become familiar with the BIM process? To what extent do you agree that it helps students understand complex building systems integration?
6	What are the major barriers to BIM learning and applications?
7	Did you face any difficulties when learning or using BIM during the BIM-integrated curriculum? Did you have any difficulties in using its software? Did you face any challenges due to the curriculum, course arrangement and timetable? Please kindly explain if there are any other issues affecting your BIM learning journeys
8	How did you resolve these challenges? Did you ask your classmates, seniors or educators? What else did you do to overcome these obstacles?
9	Is the current BIM training and support from the faculty enough? Why is it sufficient/not sufficient? Did you need any other support or assistive tools for BIM learning and applications?
10	Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the BIM-integrated curriculum?
11	Do you have any other suggestions for the BIM-integrated curriculum?

All interviews were recorded with informed consent and transcribed. Dealing with these transcriptions, this research adopted a thematic analysis: a systematic analytical technique to familiarize, organize, reduce and interpret a wealth of qualitative data, mostly in the forms of documents, maps, interview transcripts and field notes (Mills et al., 2009). Also known as the sense-making and meaning-making process, it has been widely applied across different fields and disciplines in order to discover commonalities, factors, constructs and explanatory principles from participants’ viewpoints without losing the context. In education, for example, Ponsford and Lapadat (2001) use such a process to extract students’ opinions on a school’s management and support. Here, the process was completed by hand adapting a set of instructions provided by Mills et al. (2009), including listening to all recordings, reading the transcriptions, using the interview questions as a start list, searching for interesting features based on the research goals (e.g. BIM learning process, difficulties, outcomes and recommendations), developing arguments and, most importantly, repeating the whole process iteratively. Finally, the authors discussed the process, challenges, resolutions, impacts and lessons of greater BIM integration for future curriculum improvement.

The redesigned building information modeling (BIM)-integrated curriculum

The case study in this research involved redesign and application of the architectural design curriculum at Chulalongkorn University with a three-module BIM learning journey: introduction, practice and advanced usage (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The BIM learning journey in the redesigned curriculum.

Module 1: Introducing architectural design fundamentals and the BIM concept

Before further applications, BIM background knowledge, including its concept, software and functions, is necessary. In the case study, BIM was introduced in the Computer-Aided Design Innovation course (2501373 COM AID DSGN INNOV) in the second year, when students also studied other fundamental courses, including structural design basics, small building construction, architectural design theory, architectural history and drawing and presentation. This stand-alone elective course was redesigned to focus mainly on BIM and covered the BIM concept as well as BIM software, processes and applications in the real world. Students learned BIM through lectures, class discussions and workshops allowing them to practice some BIM software functions for architectural design, such as gridlines, structural elements, material specifications and construction document preparation.

Module 2: Practicing architectural design and the BIM process

The second learning module familiarizes students with BIM software and processes. Third-year students were offered BIM as an optional platform to complete various activities and assignments in compulsory and elective courses. In Architectural Design IV–VIII, for example, students designed various typologies and scales of building in the BIM environment, such as a home office, community mall, hotel, auditorium, transportation facilities and hospital. BIM could also be applied to quantify their building energy performance and improve the design proposals. In Building Technology and Construction II and III, students used BIM to realize structural and mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems and generate construction drawings. This redesigned curriculum offered students more chances to practice and let them build their own BIM knowledge and skills from their experiences.

Module 3: Advanced architectural design and BIM applications

After practicing and applying BIM for multiple design projects in Module 2, students are expected to have developed a deep understanding of its processes and use. Here, researchers and educators see an excellent opportunity to use BIM as a pedagogical tool in many courses and disciplines, similar to other tools such as a laser distance meter, camera, drone and other architectural surveying instruments. Since BIM has the capability to superimpose and visualize a wealth of building information, it is used to help students understand complex buildings and the integration of architectural, structural, MEP and other systems.

The researchers and educators reshaped the final-year Building Technology and Construction IV (2501532 BLDG TECH/CONS IV) with pedagogical strategies including university–industry collaboration, experience-based learning and BIM as a pedagogical tool, encouraging students to use their BIM knowledge and skill to study real-world design and construction projects. After discussions among instructors drawing on in-depth understanding of BIM capabilities, the redesigned course comprises lectures, site visits, construction drawing analysis, conversations with practitioners, building a digital model of real-world buildings and a final presentation (see Table 3). It begins with lectures delivered by academics and practitioners that provide the basics for high-rise building design and construction, such as skyscraper structure, envelope, MEP system and fire safety.

Table 3.

Course timetable.

Week	Lecture and class discussion	Assignment
1	Large-scale and high-rise buildings structure 1	Case study selection
2	Large-scale and high-rise buildings structure 2
3	Large-scale and high-rise buildings structure 3
4	Fire safety for high-rise buildings	Case study site visit
5	Advanced applications of building information modeling	Building BIM model and presentation preparation
6	Building envelope
7	MEP systems in high-rise buildings
8	Construction site visit
9	Escalator and elevator
10	Sustainability in architectural design and construction
11	High-rise green building design and construction
12	High-rise office design and construction
13	High-rise residential building design and construction
14	—	Final presentation

The course assignment was also redesigned. Students were divided into groups of 12–14 members to investigate real-world high-rise building projects in terms of their architectural design, structure, MEP, building automation and other systems. The process started with selecting a case study based on the group’s interest and contacting the case for permission. Students analyzed the construction drawings to understand the complex building systems and their integration. Here, the researchers and educators noticed that students struggled to understand some joints, details and systems integration from the overlay of two-dimensional drawings. Even more challenging was understanding the components and details of other building systems beyond architectural elements, such as electrical power distribution and load connection points.

Then, with permission of the project owners, the main contractor and the facility manager, the team visited the site to observe construction activities and building operations and discuss these with the practitioners. A discussion session was also held with designers, engineers, main contractors, construction managers and facility managers. This gave students the chance to ask questions arising from the construction drawing analysis and site visits. The case study building system details and operation were clarified and discussed. Finally, students used in-depth understanding from lectures, two-dimensional drawing analysis, the site visit and discussion with practitioners to build a digital model in BIM and prepare a final presentation.

Assessment and reflection

Feedback from educators

Educators were satisfied with the educational outcomes from the BIM-integrated curriculum. They reflected that, unlike CAD and other graphical platforms, BIM requires AECO knowledge to build a digital model. It is even more intricate when many building systems are integrated and included in one design. Learning BIM solely in a classroom environment is thus an arduous journey for architecture students. In this case study, students learned and practiced BIM step by step, from a fundamental BIM process for a small-scale building to advanced BIM use in a high-rise construction project. BIM knowledge and skills were also acquired through experiential learning from observation and analysis of a real-world construction project instead of receiving knowledge only from educators. In the final presentation, students generated complex, high-rise buildings in the BIM environment (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Students’ work.

In addition, educators appreciated the benefits of BIM in architectural and construction education in that, while developing a model in BIM, students were able to acquire a deeper understanding of architectural, structural and MEP components and material specifications than would be gained by studying two-dimensional construction drawing overlays. They could also learn from the three-dimensional model generated using a wealth of building information. In the final presentation (see Figure 3), students were able to demonstrate the basics of high-rise building systems and their integration. They described not just the case study building’s architectural design but the structural, MEP, building fire safety, building automation and lift and elevator systems in detail. Thus, BIM becomes a digital platform that simulates the physical world, visualizes complex building information and offers new learning opportunities for students.

Nonetheless, the educators noted several barriers hindering the realization of the BIM-integrated architectural curriculum. The whole program redevelopment process required an in-depth understanding of BIM capabilities to reform architectural education from all course instructors with different backgrounds. Multiple discussions among instructors were used, but some stereotypical views of BIM remained. The number of course instructors with BIM skills was also insufficient to carry out this new curriculum.

Feedback from students

Students also provided positive feedback on the BIM-integrated architectural curriculum. More than half of the interviewees agreed that it helped students to become familiar with the BIM process. One student commented:

‘Although BIM usage in the design school differs from the real-world situation, this is regarded as a good introduction that makes me not afraid of using BIM in professional practice.’

Eight out of 10 interviewees also reflected that the three-dimensional digital model generated from BIM helped them to better understand complex high-rise building systems and their integration than using paper-based drawings or two-dimensional graphics in CAD. One student said:

‘Developing the three-dimensional digital model in BIM really helps me understand the basics of building systems integration. It is much better than learning from two-dimensional drawings, where the building systems information is not combined and visualized.’

Nevertheless, difficulties were encountered in the BIM learning journey. All students interviewed agreed that elaborating BIM concepts, processes and applications in one elective course was a good foundation, but they required more time and opportunities to exercise each function in design; otherwise, they would forget it. The utilization of BIM in architectural design studios and construction technology courses also varied depending on the course instructor, and there was no advanced-level BIM class. Some students had to take an external self-paid course to revisit BIM fundamentals and advanced applications. These responses highlight a challenge of the redesigned 5-years curriculum: discontinuity in the BIM learning process. One interviewee stated:

‘To gain a more in-depth understanding of complex building systems, additional time to learn BIM and develop a model in more detail would be terrific. The course timetable is also needed to be adjusted.’

Most students also referred to the limited resources and support during the model development process. Currently, BIM software is not user-friendly for new users like undergraduate students who are also unfamiliar with BIM functions for structure, MEP and other systems. Some problems were resolved by searching online learning resources or asking classmates, senior students or course instructors, but extra training at a higher level was needed along with BIM consultation sessions, resources, assistive tools and course instructors with BIM expertise. For example, one student stated:

‘More offline and online resources are needed, such as a video-on-demand, allowing students to watch or recheck whenever and wherever they face problems about the BIM program usage.’

Furthermore, more than half of the interviewees revealed that BIM was not a primary focus in the architectural design studio. Numerous design factors must be weighed in a project, including users’ requirements, laws and regulations, site conditions, building systems, energy performance and aesthetics. In the beginning, students want to create building forms and explore design alternatives freely, but BIM, unlike other graphical programs, requires a lot of information, especially for high-rise or complex buildings. Since the detailed information required to develop the model had not yet been studied or decided at this stage, students selected platforms other than BIM to visualize their ideas. One explained:

‘At the project initiation stage, CAD and Sketch Up are often used to quickly develop a preliminary design and explore design alternatives. After I have enough design information, I will decide whether to use BIM in the design development phase.’

Although educators encouraged BIM adoption in many subjects, several students still avoided using it during the 5 years of study. They supposed that BIM skills were not vital as BIM is just a stand-alone elective course. Its applications have not yet been integrated and elaborated in compulsory courses such as Professional Practice, where students learn the AECO project delivery process, architects’ roles and responsibilities and collaboration among stakeholders in the industry. To alleviate this issue, a student interviewee suggested:

‘As a graduate, I personally agree that BIM should become a compulsory course or should be more integrated into the existing courses, since it is currently an essential skill for architectural design and construction practice.’

In addition, most students reported that the complication of BIM software limited their design creativity. For example, they were not able to create complex curve building components. One interviewee said that, in spite of its numerous advantages to the AECO industry, they saw few benefits of BIM for the architectural design process.

Lessons learned and recommended pedagogical approach

The above section firstly reveals multiple challenges obstructing the students’ BIM learning journey. BIM itself is a skill requiring continuous, consistent practice. It also requires understanding of architecture, structure, MEP, material sciences, the construction process and other areas beyond the architecture discipline. In a BIM environment, the more complex the building, the higher the level of multidisciplinary knowledge required. BIM thus should not be taught in a stand-alone lecture class. It is even more sophisticated in the architecture school context, where BIM is not the focus as students also need to consider users’ requirements, the site, laws and regulations, feasibility study and cultural conditions, as well as aesthetics. In addition, some educators and students misapprehend BIM as just a computational tool and not a necessary skill, while some also hold the bias that BIM restricts or jeopardizes design creativity. Due to this context, many students will continue to avoid using BIM if it is established as an additional, optional area of study.

A more effective and sustainable approach is to advance BIM skills together with architectural and construction knowledge step by step. This research realizes this novel approach by dividing BIM content into learning modules and connecting them with the existing architectural curriculum structure: a core design studio and supportive areas. It also endorses this concept by demonstrating such a redesign, in which architectural design fundamentals and BIM concepts and usages are introduced in the foundation year, applied in the architectural design studio and other courses, and finally elaborated in complex high-rise building design and construction.

This curriculum design not only sustains BIM knowledge and skills but also revolutionizes students’ learning environment. According to the case study, the redesigned curriculum provides students with more opportunities to apply BIM in various courses throughout the 5-years study as a preparation for future practice. Furthermore, the greater integration of BIM closes the gap between classroom and knowledge origin (e.g. real-world manufacturing lines and construction sites). Although students were not able to observe the entire construction process, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, they could learn some building material and construction basics while developing and integrating the digital model in BIM. In addition, understanding structure, MEP, building automation and other areas outside their own discipline using a two-dimensional graphics overlay in CAD is arduous for architecture students. BIM brings them closer to reality by simulating real-world situations for scrutiny at any time. Thus, BIM is not just an integrated process to be studied, but also a less expensive pedagogical approach that helps architecture students understand other disciplines in the AECO industry with little or no risk.

Implementing the new pedagogical approach still faces several obstacles. Many students noted a discontinuity in BIM learning with the BIM content divided across several courses in a fragmented curriculum. For a seamless BIM learning journey, the entire curriculum arrangement and detailed course content should be further developed and meticulously refined. The increased integration of BIM also requires the coordination of instructors with diverse backgrounds and different opinions. More effort is needed to overcome the bias against BIM and prove that it can be a design companion, helping architecture students to realize their ideas and understand the ideas of others. Since constructing a digital model of complex building systems in BIM is hugely challenging for students, more educators with BIM skills, BIM professionals, resources and assistive tools are needed to help them throughout this lengthy process.

The novel pedagogical approach with three learning modules is not fixed, and can be adjusted, reallocated and reorganized in response to a variety of curriculum structures and school conditions. It is also flexible enough to incorporate with other pedagogical strategies. For instance, infusing BIM learning modules throughout the curriculum structure, along with collaboration with interdisciplinary students, is highly recommended, since BIM is a virtual platform to revitalize the fragmented AECO project delivery process. Moreover, it is worth noting that BIM is not a cure-all silver bullet to mitigate various challenges in both architectural education and the AECO sector (Lu et al., 2017). An understanding of different software and other skills are also demanded by the industry, especially small and medium-sized AECO enterprises with little BIM usage. Before adopting any pedagogical approaches, educators are thus reminded to profoundly understand the context and explore a balance point to achieve multidimensional learning objectives.

Contributions and limitations

This research provides both academic and practical contributions. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first longitudinal case study to understand the whole BIM learning journey in the context of an architectural curriculum and to reveal critical challenges from a real-world classroom. In terms of practical contribution, it provides a holistic resource for course instructors to compose a BIM-integrated curriculum, including a list of pedagogical strategies and a novel approach for greater integration with operational examples, barriers and outcomes. Nonetheless, several study limitations should be addressed. The heavy dependence on a single case study with the researchers’ involvement brings with it a suggestion of possible bias and misinterpretation. Although this drawback of action research is mitigated by triangulating results with the course documents and students’ work and feedback, additional cases are still required for generalization. In addition, the research is grounded mainly in the instructors’ and learners’ perspectives. Views from other stakeholders, such as practitioners and BIM professionals, should be discussed in more detail. The case of the BIM-integrated curriculum and redesigned course given in this study should also be treated as an example. The pedagogical plan and its implementation may be varied depending on specific conditions and should be further refined to meet the rapid change in the industry.

Conclusion

The AECO industry is striving for a more extensive application of BIM throughout the entire building lifecycle to alleviate many difficulties, and architecture schools seek its fuller integration into the curriculum to fulfil industry demands and improve the classroom environment. This research endorses this promising future by realizing a pathway for BIM integration into the existing architectural design curriculum structure. It argues that BIM should not be established as a discrete, new area, since in the architectural design school context BIM is not the focal point, is sometimes misconceived as merely a computational tool instead of an integrated process, and is accused of limiting design creativity. For greater integration, BIM content should be divided into learning modules and connected to the existing curriculum structure to develop both architectural knowledge and BIM skills consistently and concurrently throughout the study plan.

The case study affirms that this novel approach not only sustains BIM knowledge and skills but transforms understanding of other areas beyond the architectural design discipline. BIM can be a less expensive virtual platform, helping architectural students to understand more about structural, MEP and other building components and works with no risk. However, the BIM learning process does not progress uniformly, interrupted by the fragmented curriculum and uncoordinated course content. Furthermore, there is a lack of BIM educators and assistive tools to aid students during their lengthy learning journey. Instructors are also encouraged to integrate the proposed approach with various pedagogical strategies, align it with the existing curriculum, and balance it with other dimensions to accomplish diverse educational outcomes.

This study aggregates prevailing piecemeal pedagogical strategies and forms a pathway to the incorporation of BIM into the AECO curriculum. It also provides a case study example with lessons learned from the real-world classroom for future BIM-integrated curriculum development. Nonetheless, this research is merely one model of BIM pedagogy in a tertiary institution’s curriculum. There is still a plethora of cases worldwide that should be examined, shared and discussed to continuously rejuvenate the BIM-integrated architectural curriculum. The implementation of BIM in other areas and directions, such as architectural history, measurement and conservation, and architectural management, should be further investigated. Furthermore, the proposed pedagogical approach should be fine-tuned and integrated with other strategies, such as collaborative learning, in order to improve academic performance. Future research is also advised to conquer managerial hurdles, smooth the BIM learning curve, refine the curriculum and course structure and update opinions from other stakeholders, including AECO practitioners and BIM experts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Department of Architecture, Chulalongkorn University, for providing the opportunity and information for this research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Vikrom Laovisutthichai

References

Abdelhameed

(2018) BIM in architecture curriculum: a case study. Architectural Science Review 61(6): 480–491.

Abdirad

Dossick

(2016) BIM curriculum design in architecture, engineering, and construction education: A systematic review. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon) 21(17): 250–271.

Aghimien

Aigbavboa

Oke

, et al. (2021) Dynamic capabilities for digitalisation in the AECO sector–a scientometric review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 29(4): 1585–1608.

Ahmed

McGough

Austin

(2013) Integration of BIM in higher education: Case study of the adoption of BIM into Coventry University’s department of civil engineering, architecture and building Sustainable Building and Construction Conference (SB13). Coventry University, pp. 394–403.

Alizadehsalehi

Hadavi

Huang

(2019) Virtual reality for design and construction education environment AEI 2019: Integrated Building Solutions—The National Agenda. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 193–203.

Amory

Naicker

Vincent

, et al.(1999) The use of computer games as an educational tool: Identification of appropriate game types and game elements. British Journal of Educational Technology 30(4): 311–321.

Azhar

Ahmad

Sein

(2010) Action research as a proactive research method for construction engineering and management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 136(1): 87–98.

Azhar

(2011) Building information modeling (BIM): Trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the AEC industry. Leadership and Management in Engineering 11(3): 241–252.

Azhar

Khalfan

Maqsood

(2012) Building information modelling (BIM): Now and beyond. Construction Economics and Building 12(4): 15–28.

10.

Barison

Santos

(2010) BIM teaching strategies: An overview of the current approaches Proc., ICCCBE 2010 international conference on computing in civil and building engineering. Nottingham University Press, p. 288.

11.

Barison

Santos

(2011) BIM teaching: Current international trends. Gestão e Tecnologia de Projetos 6(2): 67–80.

12.

Becerik-Gerber

Gerber

(2011) The pace of technological innovation in architecture, engineering, and construction education: Integrating recent trends into the curricula. Journal of Information Technology in Construction 16: 411–432.

13.

Becerik-Gerber

Jazizadeh

(2012) BIM-enabled virtual and collaborative construction engineering and management. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 138(3): 234–245.

14.

Berwald

(2008) From CAD to BIM: The experience of architectural education with building information modeling. Denver, CO, US: American Society of Civil Engineers, 24-27, pp. 1–5.

15.

Casasayas

Hosseini

Edwards

, et al.(2021) Integrating BIM in higher education programs: Barriers and remedial solutions in Australia. Journal of Architectural Engineering 27(1): 05020010.

16.

Chen

(2019) Bridging BIM and building (BBB) for information management in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 26(7): 1518–1532.

17.

Chen

Wang

(2020) University–industry collaboration for BIM education: Lessons learned from a case study. Industry and Higher Education 34(6): 401–409.

18.

Clayton

Ozan

James

, et al.(2010) Towards studio 21: Experiments in design education using BIM Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics. Columbia: BogotaSIGraDi, pp. 43–46.

19.

Clevenger

Ozbek

Glick

, et al (2010) Integrating BIM into construction management education EcoBuild Proceedings of the BIM-Related. Academic Workshop, p. 8.

20.

Denzer

Hedges

(2008) From CAD to BIM: Educational strategies for the coming paradigm shift. Denver, CO, US: American Society of Civil Engineers, 24-27, pp. 1–11.

21.

Eastman

Teicholz

, et al.(2011) BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. John Wiley & Sons.

22.

Elmualim

Gilder

(2014) BIM: Innovation in design management, influence and challenges of implementation. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 10(3–4): 183–199.

23.

Gholizadeh

Esmaeili

Goodrum

(2018) Diffusion of building information modeling functions in the construction industry. Journal of Management in Engineering 34(2): 04017060.

24.

Gibbs

(2018) Analyzing Qualitative Data. Sage publications.

25.

Gier

(2008) What impact does using building information modeling have on teaching estimating to construction management students? Available at: http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2008/paper/CEUE179002008.pdf. (accessed 1 December 2021).

26.

Given

(2008) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage publications.

27.

Goldkuhl

(2012) Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems 21(2): 135–146.

28.

Grossman

Cormack

(2010) Technology-assisted review in e-discovery can be more effective and more efficient than exhaustive manual review. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 17(3): 1–48.

29.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.

30.

(2019) BIM-enabled pedagogy approach: Using BIM as an instructional tool in technology courses. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 145(1): 05018017.

31.

Hult

Lennung

SÅ

(1980) Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. Journal of Management Studies 17(2): 241–250.

32.

Jin

Yang

Piroozfar

, et al (2018) Project-based pedagogy in interdisciplinary building design adopting BIM. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 25(10): 1376–1397.

33.

Lamont

Swidler

(2014) Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37(2): 153–171.

34.

Laovisutthichai

Bao

(2020) Design for construction waste minimization: Guidelines and practice. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 18: 279–298. DOI: 10.1080/17452007.2020.1862043.

35.

Laovisutthichai

Bao

(2022) Building information modeling-enabled design for construction waste minimization. In: Lu

Anumba

(eds), Research Companion to Building Information Modeling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 550–571.

36.

Lewin

(1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34–46.

37.

Zhong

Xue

, et al.(2017) Integrating RFID and BIM technologies for mitigating risks and improving schedule performance of prefabricated house construction. Journal of Cleaner Production 165: 1048–1062.

38.

Fung

Peng

, et al.(2014) Cost-benefit analysis of Building Information Modeling implementation in building projects through demystification of time-effort distribution curves. Building and environment 82: 317–327.

39.

Fung

Peng

, et al.(2015) Demystifying construction project time–effort distribution curves: BIM and non-BIM comparison. Journal of Management in Engineering 31(6): 04015010.

40.

Lai

Tse

(2018) BIM and Big Data for Construction Cost Management. Routledge.

41.

Peng

Shen

, et al.(2013) Generic model for measuring benefits of BIM as a learning tool in construction tasks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(2): 195–203.

42.

Webster

Chen

, et al.(2017) Computational Building Information Modelling for construction waste management: Moving from rhetoric to reality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68: 587–595.

43.

Lueth

PLO

(2008) The architectural design studio as a learning environment: A qualitative exploration of architecture design student learning experiences in design studios from first-through fourth-year. US: Iowa State University.

44.

Masdéu

Fuses

(2017) Reconceptualizing the design studio in architectural education: Distance learning and blended learning as transformation factors. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 11(2): 6.

45.

Mills

Durepos

Wiebe

(2009) Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. Sage publications.

46.

Nath

Attarzadeh

Tiong

, et al (2015) Productivity improvement of precast shop drawings generation through BIM-based process re-engineering. Automation in Construction 54: 54–68.

47.

National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (2007) United States National Building Information Modeling Standard Version 1 – Part 1: Overview, Principles, and Methodologies. NIBS.

48.

Nicol

Pilling

(2000) Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism. Taylor & Francis.

49.

Ponsford

Lapadat

(2001) Academically capable students who are failing in high school: Perceptions about achievement. Canadian Journal of Counselling 35(2): 137–156.

50.

Pärn

Edwards

Sing

(2017) The building information modelling trajectory in facilities management: A review. Automation in Construction 75: 45–55.

51.

Pikas

Sacks

Hazzan

(2013) Building information modeling education for construction engineering and management. II: Procedures and implementation case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139(11): 05013002.

52.

Rinaldo

Tapp

Laverie

(2011) Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education 33(2): 193–203.

53.

Roitblat

Kershaw

Oot

(2010) Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(1): 70–80.

54.

Royal Institute of British Architects and Architect Registration Board (RIBA & ARB) (1997) Criteria for Validation, Part 2. London: RIBA ARB.

55.

Saghafi

(2020) Teaching strategies for linking knowledge acquisition and application in the architectural design studio. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 15(2): 401–415.

56.

Schön

(1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass.

57.

Shelbourn

Macdonald

McCuen

, et al.(2017) Students’ perceptions of BIM education in the higher education sector: A UK and US perspective. Industry and Higher Education 31(5): 293–304.

58.

Singh

Wang

(2011) A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Automation in Construction 20(2): 134–144.

59.

Stringer

(2008) Action Research in Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

60.

Suwal

Singh

(2018) Assessing students’ sentiments towards the use of a Building Information Modelling (BIM) learning platform in a construction project management course. European Journal of Engineering Education 43(4): 492–506.

61.

Varma

Jafri

(2020) COVID-19 responsive teaching of undergraduate architecture programs in India: Learnings for post-pandemic education. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 15(1): 189–202.

62.

Wee

Banister

(2016) How to write a literature review paper? Transport Reviews 36(2): 278–288.

63.

Woo

(2006) BIM (building information modeling) and pedagogical challenges. In: Proceedings of the 43rd ASC national annual conference. Associated Schools of Construction, pp. 12–14.

64.

Issa

(2014) BIM education and recruiting: Survey-based comparative analysis of issues, perceptions, and collaboration opportunities. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 140(2): 04013014.

65.

Yan

Culp

Graf

(2011) Integrating BIM and gaming for real-time interactive architectural visualization. Automation in Construction 20(4): 446–458.