Next Article in Journal
Study on the Typological Chronology of Cantonese Palatial-Type (Diantang Shi) Timber Structures in Guangdong Province, China: An Interdisciplinary Approach of Building Archaeology
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Steel Fiber Content on the Fractal Evolution of Bending Cracks in Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete Beams
Previous Article in Special Issue
Challenges and Strategies for the Retention of Female Construction Professionals: An Empirical Study in Australia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/buildings15142446
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Project Report

Characteristics of Authentic Construction Learning Experiences to Enable Accurate Consideration of Cost-Effective Alternatives

by
Karan R. Patil
1,*,
Steven K. Ayer
1,
Kieren H. McCord
2,
Logan A. Perry
3,
Wei Wu
4,
Jeremi S. London
5 and
Andrew R. Kline
6
1
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, 660 S College Ave, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
2
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Blvd, Richland, WA 99354, USA
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 660 S College Ave, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
4
Department of Construction Management, California State University Fresno, Fresno, CA 93740, USA
5
Department of Engineering Education, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
6
Department of Construction Management, California Polytechnic State University of California San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(14), 2446; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142446
Submission received: 24 February 2025 / Revised: 30 June 2025 / Accepted: 7 July 2025 / Published: 11 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Workforce Development and Education in the Construction Industry: Challenges and Strategies)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Authentic learning opportunities that simulate full-scale design and construction using real materials provide valuable experiential learning environments for construction and civil engineering students by challenging students to apply building concepts in practical settings. These activities challenge students to apply theoretical concepts in a realistic, hands-on context. However, the excessive cost of real building materials required for this mode of education limits access to the vast majority of students. As a result, educational researchers have explored potential alternatives to provide cost-effective experiential learning through activities using mock-up materials (e.g., plastic straws and popsicle sticks) and a simulation of experiences using immersive technologies (e.g., virtual reality or augmented reality). While some of these alternatives approximate the environment and others provide physical interaction with mock-up materials, the lack of authenticity in the building materials used introduces some apparent differences between the “authentic” learning environments and their cost-effective approximations. Therefore, this research aims to identify the learning processes reported by students and faculty who participated in authentic learning experiences to understand the ways in which this mode of education offers unique value to construction education. Their interview responses illustrated characteristics of authentic learning experiences that were believed to be critical to the learning process, some of which included working in groups; interdisciplinary participants; and the use of real construction materials. Although some of these characteristics are intrinsically linked to the use of real materials, others do not explicitly refer to interaction with real materials. This may point to specific aspects of authentic learning that educational researchers can replicate or enhance to provide cost-effective learning environments, such as virtual or augmented reality. The contribution of this paper is in identifying the characteristics of authentic learning experiences that may guide educational investment and research innovations that aim to replicate some of these learning experiences through more accessible learning environments.

1. Introduction

Construction professionals rarely build identical structures with identical teams, requiring them to take advantage of their experience to make decisions that are appropriate to the specific needs of a particular project and team. This highlights the need for Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) students to apply theoretical concepts to practical applications to be ready for career success [1,2,3]. This form of learning that is facilitated by experience has been established in the education literature through notable work on experiential learning theory (ELT) by prior researchers [4,5,6,7]. Therefore, in response to the various sources reporting the value of hands-on experiences [8,9,10,11], educators have leveraged experiential learning activities where students are challenged to apply theoretical concepts to the design and construction of a physical structure.
In this effort to provide experiential learning, educators have incorporated activities involving physical design and construction to apply theoretical concepts to the design and construction of a physical structure [1]. However, learning experiences that use real building materials and in an actual setting (referred to as authentic activities in this paper) remain inaccessible to the majority of students due to the high costs associated with this mode of learning [12]. The high costs of conducting these activities have also constrained the research output regarding this specific mode of education. Therefore, while there are experiential learning opportunities through authentic activities, there has been a need for alternative cost-effective alternatives to provide similar learning gains.
In order to avoid the excessive costs attached to conducting authentic activities using real construction materials (i.e., authentic materials like concrete and lumber), most studies on experiential learning are conducted indoors using mock-up materials (e.g., cardboard and plastic straws) or virtual models [13,14,15]. While the mock-up materials afford physical interaction with materials during learning, they do not simulate a realistic setting of a construction project. On the other hand, while virtual models do not allow for physical interaction with materials, there is potential to simulate a realistic virtual environment that mimics a real construction site. These accessible modes of education offer promise but often do not make claims about their learning value compared to truly authentic learning (real materials and an actual setting) because the cost of doing so would be prohibitive.
Recent studies have emphasized this challenge to balance accessibility and cost effectiveness, and recent work has stressed the importance of maintaining a high level of authenticity to satisfy learning outcomes. Sung and Hsu [16] highlighted the need to align simulation-based safety training with the realistic scenarios to mimic real-world decisions. In addition, Ghoulam and Bouikhalene [17] found in their study that immersive simulations can foster spatial reasoning, yet they stressed the importance of comparative studies that benchmark such tools against hands-on learning environments. These studies point to the need to better understand which specific elements of authenticity are essential for achieving different learning outcomes.
A more thorough understanding of the learning experience reported by participants of authentic learning would allow researchers to more directly compare reports of learning with these alternate methods to reports from students who participate in the more resource-intensive authentic learning modes. This paper aims to identify aspects of authentic learning experiences that facilitate learning to inform the importance of the activity’s authenticity and consequently to evaluate cost-effective alternatives. While authentic learning activities have been studied and have been shown to offer value, few studies have analyzed participant reflections to identify what elements of the authentic learning experience contribute most. Using interviews with students and faculty involved in various authentic learning experiences, the study explores what learners found most beneficial.

2. Authentic Learning in Construction Education

Active and experiential learning have been studied extensively by educational re- searchers [18,19,20,21], and there are several types of active learning that educators can adopt. Dewey and his team explored the use of active laboratories in order to enhance student learning and understanding in the early 20th century [22,23]. Dewey advocates for the learn-by-doing approach, where students are encouraged to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from those mistakes. This hands-on, experiential approach helps students develop critical thinking skills and practical knowledge [24]. Numerous educational studies have developed in recent decades expanding on Dewey’s work and have highlighted the need for active experimentation in both real and virtual contexts. While there is a large body of existing research on active learning, the specific meaning of “active” in this literature is obfuscated by various interpretations of active learning among educational researchers [25]. Not all interpretations involve the use of real materials in the learning process [26]. As a result, the authors of this work cannot automatically leverage all active learning reports in the literature based only on a search using similar keywords (i.e., “active”, “experiential”, or “hands-on” learning). Therefore, even though experiential and active learning has been studied extensively, the body of literature on authentic learning is much smaller—especially as it relates to construction education.
In the limited existing literature studies that report learnings specifically from authentic activities, a number of learning gains have been attributed to them such as decision-making [27,28], collaboration [29,30,31,32], critical thinking [27,30], and leadership [29,30]. To enable such learning gains through the exploration of cost-effective alternatives, there has been some research that suggests technologies like virtual models and the use of mock-up materials significantly reduce the resources required to provide the learning experience [13,14,15,33]. In a comparison between using a virtual model and mock-up materials, no difference in performance was seen, suggesting the potential for virtual versions of a learning activity to replace physical materials, effectively reducing the costs of replicating and duplicating the activity and also reducing logistical burden by reducing the space and effort requirements [13]. However, there is also evidence that some amount of physical manipulation was still important to improve learning among children for basic physics principles [34].
Recent studies have explored how augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) have been used to provide additional methods for experiential learning. Research has shown that these virtual methods can support spatial learning, real-time feedback, and enhanced learner engagement [35,36]. Studies have also highlighted the benefits as these simulations can customize content based on the users’ feedback. These tools enhance learner experiences and provide a method to match provided content with what they personally need [37]. While these studies address the role of physical interaction with materials in the learning process, they do not specifically study and isolate aspects of the activity that may have impacted the learning gains.
Due to the limited research outputs from actual authentic activities (i.e., full-scale design and construction learning to use real materials), the role of authenticity and thereby its specific benefits have not been thoroughly explored. Furthermore, among the studies that report on activities that use authentic materials, the reports are often contextualized to the goals of the particular activity and are not always focused on understanding the learning processes of participants relevant to construction education. Therefore, the aspects of authentic activities that led to those learning are not known.
Due to the high value of authentic activities but the low presence of findings related to it, educational researchers interested in all types of experiential learning would be supported through a better understanding of what aspects of an authentic learning experience facilitate desired learning outcomes. In this study, interviewing participants of authentic learning experiences will enable researchers to understand what aspects of their experiences are perceived to be instrumental to their learning. Also, since using real materials constitutes a significant portion of the cost of an authentic activity, the researchers used a deductive approach in specifically inquiring the role of physical materials in the learning experience reported by participants. This understanding may help to guide future investment in authentic learning and suggest opportunities for the exploration of inexpensive, but potentially effective, alternative learning environments to broaden access to learning. Therefore, this paper addresses the following research question:
  • RQ: What are the characteristics of authentic learning activities reported by participating students and faculty that facilitate learning outcomes?
  • RQ: In what ways do respondents indicate the role of physical materials in supporting their learning experiences?

3. Methodology

The methodology of this paper involved conducting semi-structured interviews with participants of authentic learning experiences. These interviews were intended to provide an in-depth understanding of specific aspects of the experience that may have led to the learning outcomes experienced by the participants.

3.1. Interview Protocols

A semi-structured format was used as the interview approach. In this format, every participant is asked similar questions while being careful in wording the question to elicit an open-ended response [38]. This open-endedness allows respondents to fully express their experience and researchers to obtain detailed information with probing follow-up questions. It is crucial to underscore that such qualitative research does not primarily aim for representativeness in the way quantitative studies do. Instead, qualitative studies seek depth, nuance, and understanding of complex phenomena. Following the guidelines of Crewell [39], interviews were continued until data saturation was achieved, the point when no new information or themes were emerging from subsequent interviews. This approach ensured that we captured a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter through a thorough exploration of perspectives.
In the scope of this work, whenever an interviewee mentioned a learning outcome, the interviewer would follow up with a question to determine what about the activity was believed to lead to that particular learning outcome. This process added a contextual understanding to the reports of the participants that allowed the authors to better understand the characteristics of the activity that played a potentially essential role in the learning process. Following are some open-ended questions that the researchers used to guide the semi-structured interviews:
  • How was your experience participating in the activity?
  • How was the activity beneficial to you/your students?
  • If any, how did this activity help in developing a specific skill? If any, what led to new insights into the construction process?

3.2. Selecting Interview Participants

This study employed purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling technique as explicitly classified by Kothari [40]. According to Kothari’s methodological framework, purposive sampling involves deliberately selecting participants based on specific criteria relevant to the research objectives rather than random selection. This approach was chosen because it allows researchers to select information-rich cases directly aligned with the phenomenon under investigation, in this case, authentic learning experiences involving real construction materials.
The participants interviewed for this study consisted of both students and faculty members who had previously participated in one or more authentic learning activities. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, using a criterion-based selection to ensure participants had direct experience with authentic learning involving real construction materials. Adopting a phenomenological epistemology, the sample included both students, to capture subjective experiences, and faculty members, to provide insights into student learning outcomes [37,38].
To qualify for selection in this study, the learning activity had to meet specific criteria for authenticity. In particular, it had to involve the use of actual construction materials with which the participants physically interacted in real construction project circumstances. For example, if an activity utilized plastic straws as building materials, or if it only involved observing a construction site, but not actually building any components, it would not be included in this study.
The identification of suitable participants was achieved through a systematic process. The authors reached out to faculty and students within their home university and participating universities listed on hands-on competition websites. This strategy ensured comprehensive recruitment of individuals who met the authenticity criteria, thereby providing qualitative data on the phenomenon of authentic learning in construction education contexts.

3.3. Data Collection

In this study, the authors adhered to specific and quantifiable standards in the data collection process to ensure the objectivity and integrity of the analysis. This study adopts a constructivist paradigm, allowing for knowledge to be co-constructed between the researcher and participants, a process that underpins the research team’s qualitative approach. More specifically, the interviews conducted in this study allow for the construction of rich, contextualized data from the participants’ experiences that lead to an in-depth exploration of the phenomenon. The interviews aimed to gain insight into the beneficial characteristics of authentic learning activities through individual perspectives of participants who had first-hand experience with them, which is especially valuable in this specific area of research where there is limited literature.
The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via a video conferencing application (Zoom, Version 4.6.xx, Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA), depending on the convenience of the interviewee. To maintain consistency and transparency, the authors set clear standards to guide the interview process. Additionally, a structured duration was defined for the interviews while remaining flexible to accommodate the depth of detail provided by participants. Both the student and faculty interviews were audio-recorded using a digital recorder (Zoom H4n Pro Handy Recorder, Zoom Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) when conducted in person. In situations where the interview was conducted remotely, the video-calling session was recorded using Zoom (Version 4.4.xx, Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA). In either case, the interview transcribed using Otter.ai (Version x.xx, Otter.ai, Los Altos, CA, USA) allowed the authors to revisit portions of the interview dialogues, when necessary, to confirm previous assumptions or deduce new themes within the participants’ comments during the analysis portion of the investigation. By adhering to these specific and quantifiable standards, the authors aimed to bolster the validity and objectivity of their qualitative analysis.

3.4. Data Analysis

The transcripts of both student and faculty interviews were analyzed as a single group at a semantic level using thematic analysis where the themes, or characteristics of authentic activities in this case, were identified within the explicit meanings of the data without any further investigation of what a participant said [41,42,43]. Analyzing open-ended questionnaires can be a complex and challenging process due to the unstructured nature of responses. Achieving convergence and meaningful insights from this data required a systematic approach. The data analysis process closely aligns with established interview analysis protocols commonly employed in engineering education research. This includes employing methods such as constant comparative and thematic analysis as well as ensuring methodological rigor [43,44].
To ground the analysis in established educational theory, the coding process used Kolb’s experiential learning theory [44], which emphasizes concrete experience, reflective observation, conceptualization, and active experimentation. Dewey’s principles of learning through doing [4,22,23] were also utilized to analyze the participant responses. In addition, learning outcomes reported in the existing literature on experiential learning in AEC [10,28,29,30,31,32,45,46] were used as a framework to code the transcripts based on the established learning outcomes expected from this mode of learning. Organizing the findings in this manner helped to associate known learning outcomes with the themes that emerged, highlighting potential characteristics of the experience that facilitated those outcomes.
Next, in order to deduce which of the reported learning gains were the result of characteristics exclusive to authentic learning activities and which may not have been intrinsically linked to the activity, the authors recursively analyzed the coded learning outcomes in the context of the characteristics that the participants stated facilitated those learnings. For example, keywords that characterized the nature of the activity, such as “teamwork”, “interdisciplinary interaction”, and “time constraints”, began to emerge in responses to follow-up questions that inquired as to what about the activity led to particular learning gains. The authors then re-explored the collected data from all participants. When participants mentioned a specific learning gain, the authors checked to see whether they had also mentioned one of the keywords, or a synonymous term, during their description of this learning gain. If they did, the learning gain reported was categorized based on this keyword. In this manner, associations were established, based on participant perceptions, between a certain coded learning outcome and characteristics of the authentic activity that may have been critical in facilitating the learning process.
To further illustrate how this methodology was implemented, an example is provided here. The characteristic of the “working in groups” (theme) emerged as a characteristic of authentic experiences regarded as beneficial in facilitating learning gains such as accountability, leadership, and collaboration (codes), which were deduced from transcripts of the conducted interviews (raw data). Thus, from the reports of participants of authentic activities, an association was established between this characteristic of the experience and the learning gains mentioned in the literature on hands-on learning. In instances when learning gains could be associated with multiple emergent characteristics, the reported gains were associated with all characteristics mentioned by the respondents to avoid incorrectly assuming one characteristic over another during analysis. Ultimately, this approach allowed the authors to make sense of their unstructured findings to inform broader conclusions about the perceptions reported by student and faculty authentic learning participants.

4. Results

In total, twelve individuals were interviewed, including seven faculty members and five students. Figure 1 illustrates the variety of authentic learning activities in which the interviewees participated. Of these, four were unrelated to students’ coursework and were extracurricular events facilitated by organizations like the American concrete institute (ACI), the American society of civil engineers (ASCE), and the Department of energy (DOE). The fifth category included authentic learning activities that were conducted as part of coursework outside the classroom and involved hands-on learning similar to the extracurricular activities explored. The following are short descriptions for each activity:
  • Solar Decathlon: Team Competition, where they work to create energy-efficient, environmentally friendly houses that are powered by solar energy. Participants engage in the design and construction of fully functional houses within their communities, showcasing innovative solutions for practical challenges in the construction sector. These teams compete to accumulate points through effective house operation and by presenting their solutions to expert industry judges, aiming for excellence in their endeavors.
  • The Tiny House Competition: Team competition that challenges participants to design and build small, functional, and efficient homes. These houses are typically compact and designed to maximize space utilization while promoting sustainability.
  • ASCE Competitions: Team competitions organized by ASCE to provide hands-on experience. They include the Concrete Canoe competition, where students design, build, and test canoes to gain practical experience. There is also the Sustainable Solution competition, which challenges students to develop a deeper understanding of sustainability and incorporate sustainable solutions into everyday problems. Additionally, there is a Surveying competition that requires students to use standard field and office equipment and procedures to solve common industry-related problems.
  • ACI’s Operation Ramp-Up: A student event that focuses on community service by supporting veterans. Participants are involved in building or renovating concrete ramps, making spaces more accessible for individuals with mobility challenges.
  • Coursework: Hand-on design experience included in architecture and construction coursework.
Among the interviewees, the faculty members had been involved in authentic experiences at least two times in their teaching careers. All the students interviewed were either upperclassmen or graduate students. All experiences involved real construction materials and physical interaction with the materials by the participating students. Team formation varied across activities. In coursework-based experience, faculty typically assigned teams, while in extracurricular competitions, students often self-selected based on availability and shared interest.
Buildings 15 02446 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of Interview Participants.
Figure 1. Distribution of Interview Participants.
Buildings 15 02446 g001

4.1. Instrumental Characteristics of Authentic Experiences

After the interviewees indicated which aspects of learning they believed were enhanced through the authentic experience, they were also asked what they perceived to be the cause(s) of the learnings they reported. Through our thematic analysis of 12 interviews, we identified five primary characteristics that participants associated with specific learning outcomes. These characteristics emerged from 42 distinct mentions of learning outcomes across all interviews. To analyze this, a thematic coding process was used to review the transcripts, and learning gains were cross-referenced with participant descriptions of what specific aspect led to the learning gains. More specifically, these identified characteristics of the authentic experience that emerged through the transcripts helped to illustrate which of the reported learning outcomes were perceived to be linked to various aspects of the activity by participants. These characteristics and learnings associated with them are shown in Table 1. In order to present the results in a usable manner for future researchers interested in replicating specific aspects of an authentic learning experience, the following sections describe each emergent characteristic in detail, supported by illustrative excerpts from participant interviews.
Table 2 presents the frequency distribution of learning outcomes identified through our thematic analysis. Notably, collaboration/teamwork emerged as the most frequently mentioned outcome (n = 9), with consistent recognition across both student and faculty groups. Faculty participants more frequently identified leadership development, interdisciplinary communication, and problem-solving skills, suggesting these outcomes may be more apparent to instructors than to students experiencing them. Conversely, material understanding and construction sequencing showed balanced recognition between groups, indicating these tangible outcomes are equally visible to all participants.

4.1.1. Engagement in Construction Processes

This characteristic meant that participants had the opportunity to participate, visualize, and contribute to a construction process as an active member. This aspect of authentic experiences was recognized as a pattern when interviewees referred to a particular process, such as finishing concrete, building formwork, or other construction-related processes. As an example, during an interview, a student participant reported “problem solving” as a learning outcome and referred to discovering then when they experienced how many complexities go into putting formwork together. The participant emphasized how they had not realized the level of difficulty until actually building formwork during their authentic experience through the American Concrete Institute’s ramp-up event.

4.1.2. Working in Groups

In addition to working in engagement in physical construction processes, participants frequently emphasized the social dimension of learning, particularly working in groups. The aspect of working in groups was common to all authentic experiences in which students had to work with team members to achieve a common goal. Participants usually referred to this characteristic by mentioning how challenging working in a group was but added that it was instrumental in the development of certain skills. Referring to this challenge, a faculty member said, “You are forced to work as one to succeed and nobody wants to fail and come on the radar”. It was also recognized by faculty interviewees how working in groups is a major part of what construction professionals must do in their careers. The same types of experiences related to working with individuals with different backgrounds that were observed in the academic environment are also likely to be present throughout students’ construction careers.

4.1.3. Exposure to Interdisciplinary Participants

Exposure to interdisciplinary participants also emerged as interviewees discussed the impact of working with individuals with different areas of expertise on the same project. An example of this in the Solar Decathlon was student groups composed of architecture students, civil engineering students, and construction management students. A faculty interviewee stated that construction and architecture students working together is beneficial because this role-playing gives them a better understanding of the dynamic that exists on real projects between different stakeholders. In some activities, this exposure came in the form of interacting with real professionals from other disciplines where students needed to coordinate with real vendors to complete the activity. A faculty interviewee emphasized the importance of this exposure as students might otherwise rarely encounter professionals from other disciplines since faculty members and their students tend to be from the same discipline. This opportunity to interact with interdisciplinary students and professionals is a unique opportunity to gain an understanding of the various working relationships on a construction project.

4.1.4. Use of Real Construction Materials

Another key characteristic that emerged was the hands-on interaction with building materials. Some interviewees considered it impossible to understand the way that certain materials behave under varying conditions without actually interacting with those materials. As an example, an interviewee mentioned how concrete changes its properties during the finishing process and insisted this is difficult to appreciate without physically working with concrete. One faculty participant stated, “Concrete finishing is an art that you need to feel to understand.” Another faculty member encouraged the use of real materials in learning experiences, arguing this helped students understand the functions of building elements better.

4.1.5. Time Constraint

The time constraint characteristic meant the goal that student groups were working toward had a time limit for completion. A faculty interviewee expressed how the time constraint was crucial for putting students in situations where successful groups were forced into thinking critically and making decisions. This faculty member also noted this was a good simulation of real-world projects as there are real consequences to missing deadlines, which are not always present in classroom activities.

5. Discussion

The characteristics listed in Table 1 provide context to the learning process that occurs during authentic construction experiences and give insight into aspects of the experiences that the participating members report as important in facilitating the learning outcomes. These characteristics in turn enable future researchers to identify the ways in which cost-effective alternatives may provide similar learning experiences to authentic learning activities. This review and analysis have practical implications for curriculum designers and educators, highlighting that certain learning outcomes may require authentic physical interaction, while others may be adequately supported by virtual environments.
Among the characteristics of authentic activities that emerged, it should be noted that only a few of the responses from the participants explicitly linked the interaction with real construction materials with coded learning gains. More interestingly, none of the responses specifically attributed their learning experience specifically to the authenticity of the environment itself. This suggests that while real materials may enhance engagement, it is not perceived as the primary method of learning. The authors had expected that more responses would directly reference learning from interaction real materials, especially when considering the costs required to provide this rare experience to students. To be clear, the authors do not suggest that this evidence means that interaction with physical materials is not important. Instead, the findings suggest an opportunity for additional exploration into more cost-effective alternatives to support many of the learning gains with fewer resources. For example, future researchers may continue using mock-up materials but with the aim of targeting specific characteristics from this work that were not explicitly linked to interactions with materials. Similarly, for situations where students need to learn how project-wide decision-making impacts specific construction processes, but firsthand experience in (for example) carpentry tasks may go beyond what would be expected of management students, educational researchers may explore simulations in a virtual environment to convey the relationships between specific work tasks and broader decision-making. While the findings from this paper cannot directly make claims about the extent to which approximations of authentic learning can offer value, the findings can guide what forms of educational value are targeted by future research. In addition to guiding future studies on more affordable forms of experiential learning, the findings also highlight some learning gains for which physical interaction is perceived to be required, which may provide evidence to justify investment in authentic experiences for certain situations. Learning outcomes that were attributed to the use of real materials immediately emerge as an instance that might be difficult to replicate without real materials. Interviewees indicated that interactions with materials facilitated the understanding of material behavior and construction sequencing. This seems logical as physical interaction with the material, quite literally, requires students to observe or otherwise experience material properties as they build. This understanding of the specific benefits reported from authentic learning can help educators prioritize their investments in authentic learning in contexts that have direct evidence of value for learning.

5.1. Strategic Use of Cost-Effective Learning Alternatives

The characteristics of authentic learning defined in this work suggest opportunities for future research to strategically explore both authentic learning and also inexpensive approximations to replicate experiences reported from participants. However, this does not mean that educators should assume that the success of mock-up materials, simulations, or other inexpensive alternatives suggests the ability to fully replace authentic learning. Potential synergies between the characteristics reported may not be present when targeted in isolation, which may impact the value they provide to students. For example, prior research has reported many of the learning gains observed in this work through less-expensive means: ref. [47] reported increased motivation; and refs. [46,47,48,49] reported improved collaboration through virtual environments. However, it is possible that the isolated nature of their implementation had an impact on the reported learning gains, whereas authentic experiences facilitate learning gains in aggregate during a single experience. It is possible that the effort employed by students in authentic experiences to (for example) work with others from different disciplines is greater because ramifications associated with poor interoperability will be more impactful in the eventual real construction process than in processes that are only approximated with mock-up materials. Therefore, in addition to targeting aspects of authentic learning with more accessible modes of education, future researchers should explore the ways in which cost-effective learning alternatives may support aspects of authentic learning in aggregate in order to better understand the opportunities but also the limitations associated with replicating authentic learning in cost-effective environments.

5.2. Potential for Scalable Learning Through Virtual Environments

In response to the need to provide realistic learning environments, like those enabled by authentic activities, educational researchers have been exploring the use of emerging technologies to replicate these types of experiences cost-effectively. While immersive technologies require upfront resources to develop specific types of learning, they may be scaled more effectively as they do not require new physical materials for all students.
Emerging technologies have already been proven to be effective in other industries by improving psychomotor skills [50,51,52] and within construction education contexts [53] to support students’ abilities to generate and effectively communicate constructability review feedback before construction [54,55,56] and to monitor and identify hazardous conditions on a construction site [57,58,59]. These prior studies highlight the potential and ongoing exploration in using emerging technologies for various aspects of the education process; however, these do not generally aim to compare their findings to more resource-intensive hands-on learning environments.
As this potential relates to this paper, while immersive technologies do not provide physical interaction like mock-up materials, they do afford simulating authentic activities in a realistic environment with significantly fewer resources due to the substitution of real materials with virtual objects. Especially for aspects of authentic learning that were not reported to require interaction with materials, such technologies would allow students to participate in an experience set in a realistic setting to simulate the authentic activity. Furthermore, due to the elimination of needing real materials and consequently the space required to accommodate an authentic activity, such simulations could also be integrated with classroom activities as opposed to authentic activities, which are mostly available via extracurricular events. While empirical evidence of learning outcomes through such simulations is needed, future researchers can include other characteristics identified in this paper in their virtual environments to test their efficacy in supporting the learning gains that were reported through authentic activities.

5.3. Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

Interview transcripts for both student and faculty were analyzed together as a single group in this study. Within the student groups, no distinction was made between graduate and undergraduate students to understand the effect of education level on the participant’s experiences. Additionally, while our frequency analysis revealed notable differences in how students and faculty perceive learning outcomes, with faculty being five times more likely to identify leadership development and four times more likely to recognize problem-solving skills, these divergent perspectives were not explored in depth. This represents a limitation as understanding why certain outcomes are more visible to instructors than to students experiencing them could inform both pedagogical design and assessment strategies. While the results of this study are extracted from a comprehensive report from all participants, future researchers may add richness to these findings by identifying and analyzing the differences between these groups to inform the development and facilitation of cost-effective alternatives for authentic activities in the classroom. Furthermore, while our study included frequency counts to enhance transparency, the small sample size (n = 12) limits statistical generalization. Our findings should, therefore, be considered as exploratory insights that identify important characteristics and patterns within authentic learning experiences, rather than definitive conclusions about the entire field of construction education.

6. Conclusions

This work presents the results of interviews with students and faculty who participated in authentic construction learning experiences. The findings are organized into characteristics that emerged as possible mechanisms behind the learning process. The interviewees did not directly suggest a relationship with the use of physical construction materials with most of the learning outcomes attributed to such activities. This is noteworthy because it is this characteristic of authentic activities that make them unique and expensive to conduct as compared to other modes of education. However, in some cases, the participants specifically highlighted the learning gains that were the result of interactions with real materials. These findings will help to inform how future research is conducted to strategically target similar types of learning with potentially fewer resources.
The contribution of this paper is in defining the specific characteristics of the authentic learning experience that participants reported to be valuable in the learning process and associated with specific learning outcomes. This understanding of the authentic learning experience and its beneficial characteristics will guide investment in learning activities and help target cost-effective alternatives to replicate similar learning outcomes. To enhance construction education and future course development, it is recommended to maintain hands-on learning experiences where students actively engage in construction processes, fostering problem-solving skills. The potential for cost-effective pedagogical tools proposed in this article will also enable future researchers to empirically evaluate their efficacy for aspects of the learning process that did not immediately seem to require the use and interaction with authentic materials. This research also discovered that, although cost-effective immersive technologies can potentially be employed, it remains crucial for educators to foster teamwork and stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration as it was observed to yield valuable skill enhancement and offer insights into the dynamics of real-world projects. The iterative nature of such exploratory analysis followed by confirmatory analysis by future research in this domain will allow educators to systematically design experiences that enable more students to participate in effective learning environments that prepare them with the skills necessary to succeed in their post-collegiate careers.
This study contains limitations as it depends mainly on qualitative data derived from student and faculty perceptions. The results are not intended to apply universally to all educational contexts but rather to provide guidance for future works in this field. Future research could find value expanded on this study by testing specific characteristics of authentic learning and using mixed methods and quantitative approaches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.R.P., S.K.A., K.H.M., L.A.P., W.W., J.S.L. and A.R.K.; methodology, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; software, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; validation, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; formal analysis, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; investigation, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; resources, K.R.P. and S.K.A.; data curation, K.R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.R.P.; writing—review and editing, K.R.P., S.K.A. and A.R.K.; visualization, K.R.P.; supervision, S.K.A.; project administration, S.K.A.; funding acquisition, S.K.A. and W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants Nos. 1735804 and 1735878.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available since it is proprietary or confidential in nature and may only be provided with restrictions—aggregated and anonymized interview responses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Figgess, G.W.; Vogt, R.G. Building Career-Ready Students through Multidisciplinary Project-Based Learning Opportunities—A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, OH, USA, 25–28 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Author Khuzaimah, K.H.M.; Hassan, F. Uncovering Tacit Knowledge in Construction Industry: Communities of Practice Approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 50, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Woo, J.H.; Clayton, M.J.; Johnson, R.E.; Flores, B.E.; Ellis, C. Dynamic Knowledge Map: Reusing experts’ tacit knowledge in the AEC industry. Autom. Constr. 2004, 13, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dewey, J. Experience and Education; Original work published; Kappa Delta Pi: New York, NY, USA, 1938. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kolb, D.A. Learning Style Inventory Technical Manual; McBer: Boston, MA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kolb, D.A. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Prentice Hall: Upper Sadle River, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  7. Piaget, J. The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures; Rosin, A., Translator; Viking: Oxford, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernold, L.E. Paradigm Shift in Construction Education is Vital for the Future of Our Profession. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elrod, C.; Murray, S.; Flachsbart, B.; Burgher, K.; Foth, D. Utilizing Multimedia Case Studies to Teach the Professional Side of Project Management. J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res. Special Edition 2010, 7–17. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hegazy, T.; Mostafa, K.; Esfahani, M.E. Hands-On Class Exercise for Efficient Planning and Execution of Modular Construction. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2020, 146, 05020002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pathirage, C.; Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R. The role of tacit knowledge in the construction industry: Towards a definition. In Proceedings of the CIB W89 International Conference on Building Education and Research, Salford, UK, 10–15 February 2008. [Google Scholar]
  12. Barnes, H. Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon Program; Lockheed Martin Energy Services Energy Solutions Group: Rockville, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Klahr, D.; Triona, L.M.; Williams, C. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2007, 44, 183–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Park, C.S.; Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Lim, C.R. Interactive Building Anatomy Modeling for Experiential Building Construction Education. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2016, 142, 04015019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Radu, I. Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2014, 18, 1533–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sung, T.; Hsu, H. Improving critical care teamwork: Simulation-based interprofessional training for enhanced communication and safety. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2025, 18, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ghoulam, K.; Bouikhalene, B. From classrooms to cyberspace: Understanding pedagogical approaches and outcomes in metaverse learning environments. Adv. Mob. Learn. Educ. Res. 2024, 4, 983–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bonwell, C.C.; Eison, J.A. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. In 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gosen, J.; Washbush, J. A Review of Scholarship on Assessing Experiential Learning Effectiveness. Simul. Gaming 2004, 35, 270–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Stanne, M.B. Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. 2000. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/33787421/Cooperative_Learning_Methods_A_Meta-Analysis-libre.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  21. Michael, J. Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2006, 30, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dewey, J. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process; D.C. Heath and Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1933. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dewey, J. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education; The Macmillan Company: New York, NY, USA, 1916. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen, Y. The relevance of dewey’s educational theory to ‘teaching and learning in the 21st century’. Stud. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2023, 2, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Prince, M. Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research. J. Eng. Educ. 2004, 93, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ribeiro-Silva, E.; Amorim, C.; Herguedas, J.L.A.; Batista, P. Trends of active learning in higher education and students’ well-being: A literature review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 844236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liegel, K.M. Project-Based Learning and Future Project Management; Project Management Institute: Newtown Square, PA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marshall, P.P.; Click, D.; Craft, S. The Solar Decathlon and Abet Ec 2000. In Proceedings of the ASEE Anual Conference 2004, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 20–23 June 2004. [Google Scholar]
  29. Choe, N.H.; Martins, L.L.; Borrego, M.; Kendall, M.R. Professional Aspects of Engineering: Improving Prediction of Undergraduates’ Engineering Identity. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2019, 145, 04019006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hegazy, T.; Abdel-Monem, M.; Saad, D.A.; Rashedi, R. Hands-On Exercise for Enhancing Students’ Construction Management Skills. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kuennen, S.T.; Pocock, J.B. Bringing Construction Experience into the Classroom. In Proceedings of the Research Congress: Wind of Change: Integration and Innovation, Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–21 March 2003; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sirianni, V.L.; Lee, K.L.; LeFevre, M.D.; Lindholm, J.W. Assessing the Impact of the Concrete Canoe and Steel Bridge Competitions on Civil Engineering Technology Students. In Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference, Fukui, Japan, 4–6 August 2003; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  33. Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Mora, C.E.; Añorbe-Díaz, B.; González-Marrero, A. Virtual Technologies Trends in Education. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yannier, N.; Hudson, S.E.; Wiese, E.S.; Koedinger, K.R. Adding physical objects to an interactive game improves learning and enjoyment: Evidence from EarthShake. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 2016, 23, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chiang, T.-H.C.; Yang, S.J.H.; Hwang, G.-J. An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 352–365. [Google Scholar]
  36. Barsom, E.Z.; Graafland, M.; Schijven, M.P. Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg. Endosc. 2016, 30, 4174–4183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mladenović, M.N.; Mitrović, M.R.; Milinković, D.D.; Babić, B.M. Personalized multimedia content retrieval through relevance feedback techniques for enhanced user experience. In Proceedings of the 2015 13th International Conference on Telecommunications (ConTEL), Graz, Austria, 13–15 July 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gall, M.D.; Gall, J.P.; Borg, W.R. Educational Research: An Introduction, 7th ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques; New Age International (P) Limited: Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  41. Maxwell, J.A. Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 2016, 10, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bjorklund, S.A.; Colbeck, C.L. The view from the top: Leaders’ perspectives on a decade of change in engineering education. J. Eng. Educ. 2001, 90, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marshall, C.; Rossman, G.B. Designing Qualitative Research; Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Chandrasekaran, S.; Stojcevski, A.; Littlefair, G.; Joordens, M. Learning through Projects in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the SEFI Annual Conference 2012, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23–26 September 2012; p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  46. Holt, E.A.; Loss, B.; Shaurette, M. Students Involvement in the Solar Decathlon Competition: Giving Context to the Classroom Experience. In Proceedings of the 48th ASC Annual International Conference, Associated Schools of Construction, West Lafayette, IN, USA; 2012; p. 7. Available online: http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2012/paper/CEUE211002012.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2019).
  47. Kaufmann, H.; Dünser, A. Summary of usability evaluations of an educational augmented reality application. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Reality, Beijing, China, 22–27 July 2007; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 660–669. [Google Scholar]
  48. Morrison, A.; Oulasvirta, A.; Peltonen, P.; Lemmela, S.; Jacucci, G.; Reitmayr, G.; Näsänen, J.; Juustila, A. Like bees around the hive: A comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 4–9 April 2009; pp. 1889–1898. [Google Scholar]
  49. Freitas, R.; Campos, P. SMART: A System of augmented reality for teaching 2nd grade students. In Proceedings of the People and Computers XXII Culture, Creativity, Interaction, Liverpool, UK, 1–5 September 2008; pp. 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  50. Grantcharov, T.P.; Kristiansen, V.B.; Bendix, J.; Bardram, L.; Rosenberg, J.; Funch-Jensen, P. Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br. J. Surg. 2004, 91, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Seymour, N.E.; Gallagher, A.G.; Roman, S.A.; O’Brien, M.K.; Bansal, V.K.; Andersen, D.K.; Satava, R.M. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann. Surg. 2002, 236, 458–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Washburn, D.A.; Jones, L.M.; Satya, R.V.; Clint, D. Olfactory use in virtual environment training. Model. Simul. 2003, 2, 19. [Google Scholar]
  53. Patil, K.R.; Ayer, S.K.; Wu, W.; London, J. Mixed Reality Multimedia Learning to Facilitate Learning Outcomes from Project Based Learning; American Society of Civil Engineers: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Chalhoub, J.; Ayer, S.K. Using Mixed Reality for electrical construction design communication. Autom. Constr. 2018, 86, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khalek, I.A.; Chalhoub, J.M.; Ayer, S.K. Augmented Reality for Identifying Maintainability Concerns during Design. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 8547928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, W.; Hartless, J.; Tesei, A.; Gunji, V.; Ayer, S.; London, J. Design Assessment in Virtual and Mixed Reality Environments: Comparison of Novices and Experts. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Albert, A.; Hallowell, M.R.; Kleiner, B.; Chen, A.; Golparvar-Fard, M. Enhancing Construction Hazard Recognition with High-Fidelity Augmented Virtuality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 04014024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bhandari, S.; Molenaar, K.R. Using Debiasing Strategies to Manage Cognitive Biases in Construction Risk Management: Recommendations for Practice and Future Research. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2020, 25, 04020033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mani, G.F.; Silvio, S.; Peña-Mora, F. Interactive Visual Construction Progress Monitoring with D4 AR—4D Augmented Reality—Models. In Building a Sustainable Future, Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2009, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Characteristics and associated learning outcomes.
Table 1. Characteristics and associated learning outcomes.
Excerpts from Transcripts
(Raw Data)		Learning Outcomes
(Initial Codes)		Characteristics
(Themes)		Frequency
(Count)
Process of building formworkProblem-solvingEngagement in construction processes6 mentions
Constructing wooden benchConstruction sequencing
Determining alternate construction activities when delays occurDecision-making
Cane clearance recognition for blind userEmpathy for user
“You are forced to work as one to succeed”CollaborationWorking in groups19 mentions
“The over committed motivate the under committed”Motivation
“Nobody wants to fail and come on the radar”Accountability
Students form roles within groups to reach a goalLeadership
Construction and Architecture students role-playing project relationshipsCollaborationInterdisciplinary participants8 mentions
Students must communicate with professionals from other industries for material delivery, design reviews, and constructability feedbackMotivation
Interdisciplinary negation
“Concrete finishing is an art that you need to feel”Material behaviorUse of real construction materials5 mentions
Assembling premade elements of wooden bench when joint connections had to be madeConstruction sequencing
“When time has consequences, students are urged to think clearly and solve problems”Critical thinking
Decision-making		Time constraint5 mentions
Table 2. Frequency of learning outcomes by participant group.
Table 2. Frequency of learning outcomes by participant group.
Learning OutcomeTotal MentionsParticipant Distribution
Collaboration/Teamwork9Both groups
Interdisciplinary Communication8Faculty-dominant
Leadership6Faculty-dominant
Construction Sequencing6Balanced
Problem-Solving/Critical Thinking5Faculty-dominant
Material Understanding5Balanced
Motivation4Balanced
Empathy for User2Faculty-only
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Patil, K.R.; Ayer, S.K.; McCord, K.H.; Perry, L.A.; Wu, W.; London, J.S.; Kline, A.R. Characteristics of Authentic Construction Learning Experiences to Enable Accurate Consideration of Cost-Effective Alternatives. Buildings 2025, 15, 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142446

AMA Style

Patil KR, Ayer SK, McCord KH, Perry LA, Wu W, London JS, Kline AR. Characteristics of Authentic Construction Learning Experiences to Enable Accurate Consideration of Cost-Effective Alternatives. Buildings. 2025; 15(14):2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142446

Chicago/Turabian Style

Patil, Karan R., Steven K. Ayer, Kieren H. McCord, Logan A. Perry, Wei Wu, Jeremi S. London, and Andrew R. Kline. 2025. "Characteristics of Authentic Construction Learning Experiences to Enable Accurate Consideration of Cost-Effective Alternatives" Buildings 15, no. 14: 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142446

APA Style

Patil, K. R., Ayer, S. K., McCord, K. H., Perry, L. A., Wu, W., London, J. S., & Kline, A. R. (2025). Characteristics of Authentic Construction Learning Experiences to Enable Accurate Consideration of Cost-Effective Alternatives. Buildings, 15(14), 2446. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142446

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop