Next Article in Journal
A Whole-School Approach for the Promotion of Physical Activity: An Evaluation of Stakeholders’ and Educators’ Perceptions About Education in Six European Countries
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Tarbiyah in Islamic Education: A Critical Review of the English- and Arabic-Language Literature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci15050562
education-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:
Article

Examining the Impact of Construction Field Trips on Learning Outcomes: Perspectives from Structural Architecture Courses

by
Wafa Labib
* and
Amal Abdelsattar
Architecture Department, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 11586, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 562; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050562
Submission received: 22 January 2025 / Revised: 11 April 2025 / Accepted: 24 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Higher Education)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional lectures in architectural engineering often fall short of effectively conveying practical applications. This study introduces a hybrid teaching approach that integrates structured field trips with traditional lectures based on Kolb’s four-step experiential learning cycle to address this. An experimental design was implemented to assess the impact of this method on achieving core Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). Using SPSS, independent-sample t-tests, and one-way ANOVA, we compared CLO scores across intervention groups, student seniority levels, and field trip frequency. At the same time, multiple linear regression analyses were used to analyze the influence of students’ attitudes, prior experiences, and enjoyment on the CLO scores. CLO achievement was further validated through the Course Learning Outcome Analysis Tool (COAT). The findings reveal that students exposed to field trips performed significantly better, particularly freshmen and junior students, who showed greater knowledge gains than their senior peers. Additionally, a higher frequency of trips was associated with improved academic performance, and students’ positive attitudes, prior exposure, and enjoyment of field trips positively influenced their CLO outcomes. These results underscore the effectiveness of integrating experiential learning into architectural engineering education, offering a compelling supplement to conventional lectures and addressing the limitations of traditional instructional methods by fostering deeper, more meaningful student engagement and learning.

1. Introduction

Architectural education has unique characteristics, encompassing diverse courses such as studio, theoretical, environmental, and engineering disciplines. Notably, engineering courses emphasize structural components, covering critical areas like structural analysis, design, and the exploration of structural systems and construction materials. Thus, an appropriate method of teaching is necessary for this specialist education, which calls for a thorough comprehension of concepts, the integration of various knowledge bases, and an analytical examination of the information. However, architecture students need help comprehending engineering courses due to the absence of real-life applications. Architecture students need to be exceptionally skilled at visualizing construction designs. Through structural courses, instructors can only show two-dimensional visualization, which limits students’ three-dimensional (3D) perception—an essential skill of architecture and construction students (Labib et al., 2019). This also becomes a hurdle in quickly absorbing and retaining information, which can be rectified by integrating field trips into traditional learning styles.
Furthermore, conventional, teacher-centered methods in structural courses solely employing lecturing techniques exacerbate this issue. Revision of these pedagogies is necessary for engineering schools, as they hinder graduates’ ability to apply the theoretical knowledge they learned in their undergraduate studies (Abdelhadi et al., 2019; Duan et al., 2024). Many scholars argue that conventional lectures impede students from effectively selecting and evaluating techniques, hindering the development of self-dependent thinking crucial for engineers’ future careers (Ahmad et al., 2018; Wettstein, 2018). Considering these drawbacks, there is a rising agreement that learner-centered, interactive approaches improve learning and simplify the incorporation of social intelligence skills (Lyz et al., 2020; Ramírez-Montoya et al., 2021).
This paper examined the impact of construction field trips, as an experiential learning approach, on learning outcomes from the perspectives of structural architecture courses. This research introduced a hybrid teaching method integrating experiential learning into structured field trips alongside traditional lectures to advance fundamental CLOs. This study specifically focused on evaluating the impact of structured field trips on students’ academic performance in fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) within two structural architecture courses. This was driven by the main research question: To what extent do structural analysis and design course field trips promote students’ technical knowledge and practical skills at all study levels? Furthermore, the study assessed the impact of students’ attitudes toward field trips, prior experience, and enjoyment of field trips on students’ academic performance in fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs).

2. Literature Review

Advanced engineering studies focusing on sustainable development and evaluation of teaching strategies consider using field visits in addition to traditional lectures. Ngo and Chase (2021) highlight field trips and project-based learning as potential methods for sustainable development in engineering education. While Lozano et al. (2017) extensively reviewed the pedagogical approaches influencing sustainability competencies, field trips must be explicitly included in their categorization of teaching methods. Experiential learning emerges as a contemporary approach, emphasizing learning through direct experience or hands-on activities (Pamungkas et al., 2019). Students actively participate in experiences designed to foster knowledge accumulation and the development of diverse thinking skills (Verdín et al., 2021). Numerous studies have consistently shown that experiential learning positively influences student outcomes compared to lecture-only classes (Bradberry & De Maio, 2019; Leal-Rodríguez & Albort-Morant, 2019). This modern teaching approach centers on questioning, clarification, demonstration, and collaboration. Field trips serve as a vital experiential learning activity, bridging the gap between theory and practice—an imperative in engineering pedagogy.
As an experiential learning technique, field trips offer informal learning opportunities to architecture students that enhance conceptual learning (Han, 2021). At the same time, students prefer institutions that offer more opportunities with field trips, leading to higher enrollment and retention rates (Chitty & Hesp, 2024). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) students engaged in out-of-classroom experiences, like field trips, can also apply the learned concepts in their world and become more enthusiastic and passionate about STEM-related fields (Vela et al., 2020). Engineering students exposed to field opportunities, either actual or virtual, gain more confidence, cognition, and enjoyment during their visits and thus appreciate these opportunities (Seifan et al., 2020). Field trips also allow students to interact with experts in their fields, apply classroom learning in real practical situations, and become aware of the career opportunities available in the market, which reflects in their career aspiration toward the engineering field (Kutnick et al., 2020; Seifan et al., 2020). Eventually, such career aspiration positively influences their career choices, interests, and attitudes toward the profession associated with the workplace or sites visited (Carbone et al., 2020; Seifan et al., 2020).
Several studies have assessed the impact of field trips on student performance (Leal-Rodríguez & Albort-Morant, 2019; Noreen, 2022) and student learning outcomes (Abdelhadi et al., 2019; Achen et al., 2019; Jusoh & Hadibarata, 2024; Noreen, 2022). However, only a few studies can consider the potential of construction field trips to enhance experiential learning when incorporated into the curriculum (Gomez-Lanier, 2017; Salman, 2023; Seifan et al., 2020). In particular, current structural architecture courses heavily lack the practical exposure students need to demonstrate their abilities, broaden their comprehension, and cultivate a more thorough, involved attitude toward their studies. Furthermore, despite the occasional integration of field trips into discussions on teaching methods, educational approaches, and learning outcomes, more case studies and reports must be conducted to elucidate the experiences from field trip-based learning in engineering education journals. Thorough explanations of the planning process, possible program details, and learning goals related to long field trips must be included. The literature gap begs to be filled and suggests potential directions for future studies that should aim for a more thorough and organized literature evaluation, primarily emphasizing field trips and on-site visits. This research suggests that combining traditional lectures with organized field trips would give students practical exposure and promote cognitive, social, and dynamic learning outcomes by bridging the gap between academic knowledge and practical applications.

3. Theoretical Framework

Experiential learning is defined as “a teaching philosophy that informs many methodologies in which educators purposely engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people’s capacity to contribute to their communities” (Tembrevilla et al., 2024), aligning seamlessly with the constructivist learning theory. In this approach, learners actively evaluate their learning process, fostering numerous learning outcomes (Jin et al., 2020). Experiential learning also seeks to cultivate new information and reflective perspectives on relevant issues, instigating changes in learners’ practices (Jin et al., 2020). Furthermore, it catalyzes improved critical thinking by enabling students to gather information from novel experiences and apply it to their academic or professional domains (Noreen, 2022). Kolb’s well-established four-step experiential learning cycle, illustrated in Figure 1, is instrumental in achieving these goals. In essence, this theoretical background establishes the context for exploring the impact of learning preferences on student outcomes in engineering education, emphasizing the importance of personalized and experiential learning approaches in the ever-evolving landscape of educational methodologies. Kolb’s four-step experiential learning model comprises concrete experience (CE), observations and reflections (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation (AE). This model emphasizes the cyclical nature of learning, starting with direct experience as the foundation for observations and reflections, leading to the formulation of concepts or theories, followed by active testing and practical application of these ideas (D. Kolb, 1984). The cycle then repeats at an elevated level of complexity.
Experiential learning is classified into field-based experiences and classroom-based learning. Students motivated by personal experiences, those facing challenges in traditional classrooms seeking alternative methods for success, and those benefiting from hands-on guidance are primary beneficiaries of experiential learning (Cantor, 1995). Field-based experiences encompass activities like field trips, internships, and cooperative education, while classroom-based experiential learning includes games, case studies, presentations, and various forms of group work (Lewis & Williams, 1994).
The field trip, a critical interactive teaching strategy, offers students practical exposure by moving away from the traditional classroom setting and engaging them directly in real-world events (Zhao et al., 2022). It exposes students to activities that increase cognition, confidence, and enjoyment during learning (Seifan et al., 2020). It sparks curiosity, collects materials for classroom exercises, and exposes students to phenomena that are impractical to simulate within the classroom. Through field trips, students learn about principles and phenomena through exposure to real settings and applying knowledge gained in lectures and laboratories, developing students’ technical, social, and organizational skills (Hernandez-de-Menendez et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). Crucially, field trips offer experiential learning benefits that extend beyond traditional lectures. Field trips provide students with multiple learning opportunities to gain experience, learn about learning structure, engage in discussions with peers involved in the trip, and improve themselves through feedback from teachers and students, leading to enhanced academic and professional decision-making skills (Achen et al., 2019). The tangible interface with real-world scenarios during field trips enhances students’ understanding and retention of information compared to conventional teaching methods (Asad et al., 2021). Including field trips can benefit learning outcomes since they provide spaces for exploration and unique experiences (Seifan et al., 2020). Additionally, field trips offer invaluable real-world knowledge that may be challenging to acquire through traditional means (Seifan et al., 2019).
In essence, this theoretical background underscores the significance of experiential learning, mainly through field trips, in providing students with practical exposure, enhancing their understanding, and bridging the gap between theory and real-world application in engineering education. Field trips have been proven effective in engineering education, contributing to improved student performance and understanding, increased informal interactions with instructors, a more sophisticated grasp of the natural world, exposure to real-life practice experiences, improved retention, and encouragement of self-motivation (Gast, 2021; Ismail et al., 2021; Jusoh & Hadibarata, 2024; Seifan et al., 2020). Furthermore, they allow students to meet with experts and professionals, enhance their understanding of concepts (Makransky & Mayer, 2022), raise awareness of professional practice (Fabian et al., 2019), and help them understand the sequence or duration of activities and the description of different roles involved in the site (Seifan et al., 2020).
Recently, in engineering education, studies have investigated replacing field trips with virtual trips created by virtual reality (VR) technology. These studies have proved that VR improves the engagement of new generations, develops their learning experience, and enhances spatial skills. In addition, VR can be used to avoid safety issues in authentic field trips (Eiris et al., 2020; Mastrolembo Ventura et al., 2022; Pham et al., 2018; Seifan et al., 2020). However, students who participated in the VR visit experience expressed that a virtual trip would never replace or even give the same experience as an actual field trip; it can be helpful in emergencies and to save time and money and avoid safety worries (Han, 2021; Seifan et al., 2020).
While numerous studies have explored the impact of field trips on learning in engineering education, especially in courses like hydraulics, information systems, earth structures, communication in engineering, environmental engineering, and construction (Crookston et al., 2020; Gast, 2021; Ismail et al., 2021; Jusoh & Hadibarata, 2024), limited research has focused on their use in structural architecture classes. In architecture, only one study has been conducted on structure courses. Salman (2023) compared using physical and virtual field trips. The two methods were compared based on the students’ grades in a quiz and their responses to a survey. Although students scored better with virtual trips, they mentioned that actual field trips are still essential. The students highlighted the significance of their physical engagement with the construction site. Despite the widespread use of field trips in various disciplines, the literature review highlights a gap in reporting the use of structured field trips to enhance Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). To address this research gap, this paper introduces a teaching approach centered on structured field trips to improve student academic performance in specific CLOs, providing a unique and valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

4. Materials and Methods

This study presents a comprehensive pedagogical approach to integrating experiential learning experiences within conventional lectures, with the primary objective of positively influencing fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). The approach was applied to two courses: Structures for Architects I (ARCH 261) and Structures for Architects II (ARCH 262). The method comprises four steps inspired by Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (D. Kolb, 1984). The initial step involves identifying the fundamental learning outcomes of the selected courses. Subsequent steps include determining suitable field trip sites to enhance these outcomes, collecting data from students who participated in the field trips, validating the collected data, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. The application and contribution of this pedagogical approach are also reflected upon. The proposed method is depicted in Figure 2.

4.1. Identify Fundamental Learning Site

4.1.1. Sample Selection: Fundamental Course Learning Outcomes—Step 1

The researchers formulated survey questions based on the course goals of the study tours, given the absence of thorough reviews of these tours in existing literature. Notably, there is a lack of documented course objectives despite the perceived educational similarity of both study tours. The overarching goals of both tours are to expose students to industry specialists, business methodologies, design trends, and the interconnection between design and culture.
The proposed research methodology was implemented in two distinct courses, Structures for Architects I (ARCH 261) and Structures for Architects II (ARCH 262), at a private Saudi Arabian institution. The fundamental engineering courses ARCH 261 and ARCH 262 cover statics and material strength, explain concepts related to the elemental nature of structural materials, and give overviews of basic structural systems. Additionally, the courses include discussions on the analysis and design of simple building structures, practical exercises on the behavior and planning of structural systems, exploring principles of structural behavior against gravity and lateral forces, and the diverse applications of contemporary structural systems. Field trips were meticulously planned to offer students a comprehensive range of information and experiences, focusing mainly on detailed insights into the fundamental learning outcomes of the selected courses, such as structural systems and building materials (Allen & Iano, 2019). Table 1 documents the CLOs of the two classes and their corresponding field trips.

4.1.2. Site Selection

The selection of field trip sites is a crucial step in the planning process, aiming to ensure that each field trip is optimally aligned with enhancing the course’s fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). Given constraints such as limited time and resources, resulting in a finite number of field trips and destinations, a meticulous selection process provided valuable opportunities for participating undergraduates. The selection procedure took into consideration the following key factors:
Field trip data components:
  • Reinforcement of fundamental CLO content previously covered in the classroom.
  • Access to general on-site experiences.
Criteria for site selection:
  • Size of the project and variety of frameworks.
  • Scope of development activities at each site and seasonal activities during the visit.
  • Consideration of sustainability and environmental quality systems aimed at preserving nature while creating high-quality workspaces in clients’ offices.

4.2. Going on Field Trips—Step 2

This study lasted two years and covered four consecutive semesters. Table 2 outlines the six selected destinations, each lasting four to five hours. Instructors actively participated in all visits, devising a structured course of action to facilitate each trip. They also proposed potential dates, allowing sponsors to select a suitable time. Documentation outlining the rationale behind each field trip destination and the corresponding fundamental learning outcomes was shared with site supervisors before the trips.
Before embarking on trips to construction sites, students were briefed on general safety guidelines, and any specific rules imposed by builders regarding student visits were reviewed. Students were provided synopses detailing each visit’s project scope, development strategies, safety, and quality control measures. During site visits, students were exposed to various structural components such as beams, columns, slabs, trusses, rafts, excavation, waterproofing, dewatering, shoring, etc. They examined site progress reports, observed health and safety measures, and gained insights into quality control techniques.
Following the site visit to the Al Riyadh metro station, students from semester 172 also toured a laboratory to understand material planning and testing procedures (Table 2). They gained additional perspectives on construction and material testing environments and received extensive information on testing building materials, enhancing their understanding of real-world applications.

Fieldwork Process—Enhancing Fundamental CLOs

The fieldwork process was meticulously designed to augment fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) and cultivate a holistic learning experience for students. The sequence commenced with students attending presentations by construction specialists, with a specific focus on materials integral to the identified CLOs. This deliberate inclusion aimed to immerse students in practical field experience, extending beyond the traditional field trip concept. Students were actively encouraged to engage during these presentations by recording questions or points requiring clarification. Subsequently, an interactive session allowed students to communicate directly with the construction team, fostering a dynamic exchange of insights. This contributed to improving CLOs and played a pivotal role in honing communication skills tailored for interactions with construction professionals and collaborative group work.
The multifaceted benefits extended further to improving critical thinking and problem-solving skills as students observed firsthand the operational dynamics of a construction site. This initial phase laid the foundation for an immersive learning experience, ensuring students were well-prepared to extract maximum value from the subsequent Jobsite tour. The culmination of the fieldwork process was the actual Jobsite tour, strategically designed to maximize students’ engagement with the construction process. To instill a sense of attentiveness, students were advised to document their experiences through photographs and other media (refer to Figure 3). This dual approach, combining visual documentation with active observation, aimed to deepen students’ understanding of the intricacies of the construction process. In addition to the experiential aspects, students were tasked with a significant post-fieldwork assignment—preparing a comprehensive summary report. This report encapsulated detailed insights from each visit, emphasizing a reflective synthesis of the practical knowledge acquired during the fieldwork. Through this structured reporting, students were encouraged to articulate their observations, analyze the real-world application of theoretical concepts, and draw connections to the identified fundamental CLOs.

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis—Step 3

4.3.1. Participants

The research was conducted at a prominent private higher education institution in Saudi Arabia. The participants comprised 168 architecture students from a private university who willingly agreed to participate in the study. The students were categorized into control and experimental groups at the beginning of the fall semester. Since the study spanned four semesters, the control group consisted of 48 students enrolled in one semester without field outings. In comparison, the experiment group consisted of 120 students enrolled in the remaining three semesters (i.e., semesters no. 162, 171, and 172) and actively participated in the field trip. The study sample was also divided into three groups based on their level of seniority: freshman, junior, and senior students. Incorporating feedback from all three levels—first-year students, juniors, and seniors—provides valuable data for understanding how field trips can be more effectively integrated into the curriculum. However, some senior students were deliberately chosen to participate in the field trips, as the Architecture Department recognized the inherent advantages of such excursions for senior-level students. All students in the experimental group were asked to fill in the survey after visiting construction sites. In contrast, students in the control group were asked to fill in the survey beforehand, as they were not a part of the experiment.
Table 3 shows the composition of respondents across demographic characteristics. Considering that the study was conducted in two courses, i.e., ARCH 261 and ARCH 262, 76.2% (n = 80) of students from ARCH 261 and 63.5% (n = 40) of students from ARCH 262 were assigned to the experimental group. All students in the control groups were currently enrolled in semester # 161 in both courses (ARCH #261: n = 66, 62.9%; ARCH #262: n = 34, 54.0%). Contrarily, all students in experimental groups were currently enrolled proportionally in remaining three semesters, i.e., semester #161 (ARCH #261: n = 9, 8.6%; ARCH #261: n = 9, 14.3%), semester #162 (ARCH #261: n = 15, 14.3%; ARCH #261: n = 7, 11.1%), and semester #172 (ARCH #261: n = 15, 14.3%; ARCH #261: n = 13, 20.6%). Lastly, first-year students comprise 62.9% and 54.0% of the sampled population in both courses.

4.3.2. Measures of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)

The researchers created two-course assessments to test student learning outcomes based on Course Learning Outcomes (CLO 1 and CLO 2). Each assessment question was mapped against CLOs as a benchmark for evaluation. Later, both researchers, individually as instructors, graded each assessment question and summed it up to create a final achievement grade for all students. These grades were utilized as the measures of Course Learning Outcomes for assessing the students’ achievement of both CLOs (i.e., CLO 1 and CLO 2).

4.3.3. Survey Instrument

A survey was meticulously designed to collect quantitative data on the impact of study trips in connecting theory and practice. The survey was composed of two sections: The first section comprised personal information, including partial student ID, course (ARCH #261/ARCH #262), semester (semester # 161, 162, 171, 172), seniority level (freshman, juniors, and seniors), prior experience of field trip (No/Yes), and enjoyment level (No/Yes). The second section contained the statements on ‘attitudes towards field trips’. These statements included “assisting your learning compared to lecture-based experience”, “linking structure and construction practice with the theory”, “enhanced your knowledge of theoretical concepts of structure and construction technology”, “interpreting two-dimensional drawings and details with visual three-dimensional reality”, and “understanding of the sequence of construction activity”, and were measured on 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 5 (=strongly agree). As measured on the Likert scale (Bujang et al., 2018), Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to confirm the reliability of the variable ‘attitude towards field trip’ only and yielded a coefficient of 0.85, indicating high reliability. Furthermore, the researchers, being the instructors, obtained the assessment grades against partial student IDs for all students who participated in the survey.

4.3.4. Data Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27 was used to analyze the collected data quantitatively. Frequency distribution was computed to describe the composition of respondents in different categories of demographic characteristics. To assess the research objectives, independent-sample t-test analysis was conducted to compare students’ learning outcomes, or grades in CLOs, across control and experimental groups. Similarly, one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare students’ learning outcomes, or grades in CLOs, across levels of seniority and frequency of field trips. Such analyses would determine how students’ learning outcomes (CLOs) can be altered or improved through different characteristics of construction field trips. Lastly, Pearson’s correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the impact of attitude, prior experience, and enjoyment level on grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). Since Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) differ for each course (i.e., ARCH 261 and ARCH 262), all analyses were conducted separately at the course and CLO levels.

4.4. Data Validation and Reflection of Statistical Analyses—Step 4

This study incorporated the Course Learning Outcome Analysis Tool (COAT) into the examination system as a valuable tool to assess the extent to which CLOs were achieved. Developed in the college of engineering at PSU, the COAT tool includes student names, course assessment methods, CLOs, a mapping between CLOs and assessment questions, and grades for each question within the assessment method. The percentage of achievement of each CLO for every student is calculated. Students who achieve 70% or more are considered to meet the CLOs. The overall achievement of each CLO is calculated by dividing the number of students who achieved the CLO by the total number of students. The generated achievement percentage in the experimental group (i.e., Semester 162, 171, and 172) was then compared with the control group (Semester 161) to calculate the enhancement percentage. This enhancement percentage in experimental groups/semesters against control groups/semesters reflected the effectiveness of field trips in enhancing academic achievement.

5. Results

5.1. Comparing Grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) Across Control and Experimental Groups

The comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLO 1 and CLO 2) in courses # ARCH 261 and ARCH 262 across control and experiment groups is presented in Table 4. The data meet the assumptions of normality (S-W = 0.964, p = 0.827, Skewness max = −1.407, Kurtosis max = 1.414) and the homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05) and partially meet the assumption of independence due to students’ nesting with instructors. The results from independent-sample t-test analyses indicate that in both courses, ARCH 261 and ARCH 262, the mean grades in CLO 1 and CLO 2 significantly differ among control and experimental groups (all p < 0.01). Descriptive statistics support these findings, as in ARCH 261, the mean scores of marks in both CLOs were higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The effect size calculated based on the difference in groups shows a medium effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = −0.718) and a significant effect for CLO 2 (ղ2 = −0.871). Similarly, in ARCH 262, the mean scores of marks in CLO 1 and CLO 2 were higher in the experimental group than in the control group. The effect size calculated based on the group difference shows a significant effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = −0.643) and CLO 2 (ղ2 = −1.333).

5.2. Comparing Grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) Across Levels of Seniority

The comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLO 1 and CLO 2) across seniority levels (i.e., first-year, third-year, and senior) is presented in Table 5. The data meet the assumptions of normality (S-W = 0.917, p = 0.364, Skewness max = 0.599, Kurtosis max = 1.610) and the homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05) and partially meet the assumption of independence due to students’ nesting with instructors. The results from one-way ANOVA analyses indicate that in both courses, ARCH #261 and ARCH #262, the mean scores of marks in CLO 1 and CLO 2 significantly differed across levels of seniority (all p < 0.01). In particular, first-year students scored lowest, while senior students scored higher in both CLO 1 and CLO 2 assessments in both courses. However, the mean grades of junior students in CLO 1 and CLO 2 fall in the middle of first- and fourth-year students in both courses. Post-hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD also indicate that all groups scored significantly different grades from each other in both CLO 1 and CLO 2 assessments in both courses (all p < 0.01). Furthermore, the differences in mean grades in both CLOs were relatively wider in ARCH #261 as compared to ARCH #262, as indicated by the effect size: it showed a small effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = 0.259) and CLO 2 (ղ2 = 0.205), while a relatively higher but small effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = 0.291) and CLO 2 (ղ2 = 0.273) in course ARCH #262.

5.3. Comparing Grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) Across Frequency of Field Trips

The comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLO 1 and CLO 2) across the frequency of field trips (i.e., 0, 1, 2, 3) is presented in Table 6. The data meet the assumptions of normality (S-W = 0.902, p = 0.265, Skewness max = 0.599, Kurtosis max = 2.890) and the homogeneity of variance (p > 0.05) and partially meet the assumption of independence due to students’ nesting with instructors. The results from one-way ANOVA analyses indicate that in both courses, ARCH 261 and ARCH 262, the mean marks in CLO 1 and CLO 2 were significantly different across different frequencies of field trips (all p < 0.01). Post-hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD also indicate that in CLO 1 on course # ARCH 261, students who did not have any field trips scored significantly less as compared to students making one, two, or three field trips, while in CLO 2 on course # ARCH 261, students who did not have any field trips scored significantly lower as compared to students making two or three field trips. The effect size calculated based on the difference in groups also supports the statistical findings, as it showed a small effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = 0.264) and CLO 2 (ղ2 = 0.204) in course ARCH 261, while it showed close to a small effect for CLO 1 (ղ2 = 0.191) and a small effect for CLO 2 (ղ2 = 0.247) in course ARCH 262.

5.4. Impact of Attitude, Prior Experience, and Field Trip Enjoyment on Learning Outcomes

Table 7 shows the correlation between learning outcomes and attitude towards field trips, prior experience, and level of enjoyment in the current field trip. The results indicate that attitude towards field trips, prior experience, and enjoyment level in current field trips had a significant positive association with both learning outcomes, i.e., CLO 1 and CLO 2 (p < 0.01). Furthermore, both learning outcomes were significantly associated, indicating their coexistence in the same discipline (p < 0.01).
Table 8 shows the relation between learning outcomes (CLO 1 and CLO 2) and different factors. Four regression models were conducted to assess the impact of attitude, prior experience, and level of enjoyment on each learning outcome, i.e., CLO 1 (Model 1–2) and CLO 2 (Model 3–4). The results from multiple linear regression analyses indicate that both models are significant at 0.1% (p < 0.001) and meet the multicollinearity, linearity, and homogeneity of variance while partially meeting the assumption of independence due to students’ nesting with instructors. In course ARCH 261, students’ attitude (β = 0.329, p < 0.001), prior experience of field trips (β = 0.629, p < 0.05), and level of enjoyment in the current field trip (β = 1.116, p < 0.01) significantly predicted Course Learning Outcome 1 (CLO 1). Similarly, the student’s attitude (β = 0.267, p < 0.05), prior experience of field trips (β = 0.996, p < 0.001), and level of enjoyment in the current field trip (β = 0.632, p < 0.01) significantly predicted Course Learning Outcome 2 (CLO 2) in the course ARCH 261. A similar but more substantial effect was found in grades of both CLO 1 and CLO 2 in course ARCH 262, as Model 1 and Model 3 portraying course ARCH 261 explained 26.4% and 32.3% of variances in CLO 1 and CLO 2 grades, while Model 2 and Model 4 portraying course ARCH 262 explained 63.4% and 70.2% of variances in CLO 1 and CLO 2 grades.

5.5. Learning Outcomes

Evaluating academic accomplishments through Course Learning Objectives (CLOs) stands as a crucial means for refining the effectiveness of teaching and learning methods. As is evident from the statistical analysis comparing CLOs’ grades across control and experimental groups, the students’ performance in CLOs improves after the intervention of field trips. To validate these results as the last step in Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, the COAT tool was used to generate the percentage of achievement and enhancement for each course and CLO, which reflects the effectiveness of field trips in enhancing academic achievement. Table 1 delineates the chosen CLOs for the ARCH 261 and ARCH 262 courses in this study. Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate the percentage enhancement of each Course Learning Outcome (CLO) in experimental groups, i.e., the semesters where students had the opportunity to participate in trips (Semesters 162, 171, and 172), compared to the control group, i.e., the semester in which students did not participate in trips (Semester 161). Table 9 presents the COAT results for CLOs.
The findings show that all fundamental CLOs in the two courses progressed in the other three semesters (Semesters 162, 171, and 172) compared to Semester 161 (control group). This supports the survey results and the students’ verbal comments, which show that they are more motivated to complete the fundamental CLOs related to field trips. The field visits proved more motivating than regular classroom lectures and helped students better conceptualize the course material. Higher scores on tests and homework were a consistent result of this increased involvement, significantly improving academic achievement in terms of the key CLOs.
The survey analysis results were validated by looking at two Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs), specifically CLO 1 and CLO 2 for ARCH 261. In Semesters 162, 171, and 172, CLO 1’s academic performance improved by 10%, 20%, and 9%, respectively, compared to Semester 161 (control group), during which no field trips occurred. This shows how well the students can see and distinguish between key structural elements in three-dimensional scenarios, including beams, trusses, and frames. Over 94% of students reported that the field visits enhanced their ability to comprehend and convert two-dimensional drawings and information into concrete three-dimensional visual aspects, according to descriptive statistical analysis, which produced consistent results. For CLO 2, which assesses the students’ ability to recognize different structural systems and materials, academic performance improved by 10%, 11%, and 9% in Semesters 162, 171, and 172, respectively, compared to Semester 161 (control group). This finding aligns with the survey results, where more than 94% of students believed that field trips are crucial in enhancing their understanding of the theoretical concepts related to structural systems and construction materials. CLO 1 and CLO 2 were also employed for the second structural course ARCH 262. The findings revealed that academic performance for CLO 1, assessing students’ proficiency in recognizing essential structural systems and materials, improved by 4%, 21%, and 14% in Semesters 162, 171, and 172, respectively, compared to Semester 161 (control group). Conversely, academic performance for CLO 2, evaluating students’ ability to apply structural systems efficiently, remained relatively consistent across all semesters, with an average enhancement of 21% throughout the four and three semesters.
Despite the improved academic performances in the three semesters where students participated in field trips compared to Semester 161 (control group), there was no discernible correlation between the frequency of field trips and the extent of improvement in the CLOs. This finding aligns with the earlier survey results, suggesting that the initial field trip imparted more new information to students than subsequent ones. Consequently, instructors should prioritize organizing well-structured initial field trips to meet students’ needs and expectations at the initial stages. Another plausible explanation would be that field trips immediately improve the student’s academic performance, and if hybrid pedagogy was sustained, students successfully maintained their academic performance over time. Hence, instructors should also focus on implementing this hybrid pedagogy permanently to achieve higher academic performance throughout the courses.

6. Discussion

This study explored the effectiveness of structured field trips in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical applications, specifically within the context of architectural engineering courses. Drawing on the work of Gomez-Lanier (2017), who highlighted the positive impact of study tours on achieving Course Learning Outcomes, this research aimed to assess how well-organized field trips could enhance the students’ understanding of fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). The study emphasized the importance of well-designed learning objectives linked to course design and evaluation to deepen student learning. Through site visits, students are exposed to the difficulties and limitations that architects encounter throughout the design and construction phases. This includes managing timetables, addressing environmental problems, adhering to building rules, and working with budgets. By witnessing these difficulties firsthand, students gain a more realistic perspective of the profession. Site visits also allow students to observe how architectural concepts, such as structural systems, material choices, and design principles, are implemented in real-world projects. Students can better understand how theoretical knowledge translates into practice by seeing the materials, proportions, and techniques used in actual buildings. This finding was consistent with D. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle and D. A. Kolb et al.’s (2001) experiential learning theory, as this learning method promotes active learning and allows students to acquire knowledge by experiment, practice, and reflection on their actions and practice.
Structured field trips in this study went beyond mere site visits; they were meticulously designed to integrate teamwork efforts focused on specific CLOs. This approach addressed some architecture students’ challenges in traditional classrooms and provided an alternative method to enhance their learning experience. The study found that increased involvement in field trips results in higher and consistent scores on tests and homework, showing a significant improvement in academic achievement among the key CLOs. Similar results were noted by Lee et al. (2008), who conducted a thorough study of experiential learning’s efficacy in construction engineering education and showed that it outperformed traditional lectures in raising student achievement. The study also found that involving students in various responsibilities during field trips, such as more profound comprehension of cutting-edge technologies, active stakeholder discussions, enhanced practical knowledge and skills, deepened conceptual understanding, improved knowledge retention, exposure to diverse learning methods, improved communication skills, and direct engagement with presentations and construction teams, significantly improved academic performance in fundamental CLOs. The findings underscored the multifaceted benefits of field trips, including developing communication skills for construction professionals, teamwork, critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and a firsthand understanding of the construction site processes. This approach facilitated students’ learning and gave practical exposure to architectural concepts, which allowed them to connect theoretical knowledge with real-world applications. This study’s findings were consistent with the studies of Achen et al. (2019), Hernandez-de-Menendez et al. (2020), Seifan et al. (2020), and Zhao et al. (2020), which also showed similar results.
Consistent with Zhao et al. (2020), the study also found that field trip enjoyment significantly predicted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). This indicated that students become motivated to explore the field trips, which creates perceived learning effectiveness, positive attitude, and higher academic performance. Furthermore, consistent with Gubbels et al. (2020) and Zhao et al. (2020), the study found that students’ attitudes toward field trips significantly predicted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). This suggested that students showed positive attitudes by showing interest in field trips, perceived competency in structure and construction technology, and perceived autonomy in performing work activities, which results in higher academic performance. Lastly, consistent with Duke et al. (2021), the study found that prior experience on field trips significantly predicted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). This suggested that during field trips, students link prior knowledge and experiences to new learning and improve their academic performance to a further extent. Hence, the study concluded that having a positive attitude towards field trips, prior experience in field trips, and a high level of enjoyment towards field trips positively predicted students’ academic performance in fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs).
This study offered a greater understanding of how students’ experiences and academic maturity affect their perceptions of field trips by incorporating responses from three levels of students: first-year students, juniors, and seniors. Senior students expect field trips to focus on specific topics of architecture (e.g., sustainability, urban planning, and digital design) because they have more expertise. They opt out if the field trips are too broad or do not fit their developing interests. Additionally, they may see field visits as a chance to network professionally or learn about innovative techniques. They believe field trips must focus more on their level and support their advanced abilities and career goals. The findings were consistent with the study of Groves (2019), which highlighted that high school students are dedicated, focused, and highly passionate about their research ideas. Furthermore, senior students who were engaged in field trips in the past showed better learning from field trips and higher academic performance.
On the other hand, juniors may approach field trips with more significant curiosity as they are still developing their professional objectives. Given that they do not have the same hands-on or real-world experience as seniors, their comments highlight the necessity for more structured learning during these visits. Juniors hold a more reasonable perspective, appreciating the practical expertise that field trips offer and viewing them as a means of expanding their comprehension of the course material. Without strong attachments to particular expertise that field trips offer while also viewing them as a means of improving their comprehension of the course material, first-year students are more receptive to general exploration without strong attachments to specific career ambitions. They are more excited about exposure to different settings and activities and less skeptical of the trip’s design or goal. First-year students may value the field trips as an exciting diversion from conventional instruction.
Modifying the field trips’ focus or degree of complexity according to the students’ level after compiling these variations in replies is advised. For example, first-year students may benefit from more introductory experiences, while senior-level field trips may offer more exposure at a professional level. Senior students who think field trips are too elementary should be offered extra resources or preparing materials. To continuously evaluate whether the field trips are fulfilling the changing needs of students at every academic level, a feedback loop should be created. The findings were consistent with the study of Salman (2023), which highlighted that first- and second-year students have little field experience, while juniors and seniors engaged in virtual field trips (VFTs) for conceptual clarity.
Moreover, the study demonstrated that student reflection diaries revealed highly positive experiences during field trips, emphasizing the value of meeting professionals, attending lectures, and exploring offices and showrooms. The immersive learning elements, including exposure to new cultures and architecture, were highlighted as significant contributors to the students’ broader global perspective. While recognizing that field trips cannot replace regular classes, the study emphasized their crucial role in structural engineering courses and architectural practical educational modules. The student-centered approach of field trips and well-coordinated learning processes emerged as a valuable technique for achieving essential CLOs. The observations also revealed that direct experiences from field trips positively influenced the students’ understanding of architectural engineering activities. The study advocates integrating field-based teaching models into architectural engineering courses, aligning with scholars like Hadgraft and Kolmos’s (2020) recommendations. The positive responses and strong student support further validated the significance of incorporating field trips into the pedagogical approach, affirming its positive impact on student engagement and learning outcomes.

7. Limitations and Future Work

While this study has provided valuable insights into integrating structured field trips with traditional lectures to enhance student learning, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations that offer avenues for future improvement. One of the common challenges faced was the usual constraints associated with field trips, including logistical issues and time constraints. In the realm of engineering education, the scarcity of contact hours poses a hindrance to seamlessly integrating courses and fostering practical competency skills. Overcoming these challenges requires innovative hands-on learning techniques that address core curriculum course requirements. Despite the insights gained from the survey, it is crucial to recognize the limitation posed by the relatively limited amount of data collected. The study refrains from making universal recommendations based on this constrained dataset, emphasizing the need for future studies to gather more comprehensive information. To enhance the study’s efficacy, there is a clear opportunity for improvement, particularly in establishing official course objectives for study tours. An annual evaluation procedure is also recommended for students and teachers engaged in study tours. This evaluation process is vital for adapting the study tours to evolving student and staff needs and ensuring their effectiveness.
The study could benefit from further refinement by exploring the longitudinal effects of student learning over time, particularly in the context of sequential classes. The exclusion of students who visited ARCH 261 from the study could be better justified if their experiences at the sites were considered. Moreover, using the Course Outcome Assessment Tool (COAT) to measure the accomplishment of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) needs more external validation in other studies. Establishing the validity of this approach through scientific evidence is essential for robust assessment, prompting a call for an independent examination of the learning outcomes associated with field trips. An overlooked aspect in the study is the concept of Integrated Learning, which could optimize courses, including site visits, to meet structural course requirements while enhancing student knowledge. Future work should explore integrated learning to streamline costs and foster cross-module cooperation. Furthermore, there is a need to expand the scope of learning outcomes covered during fieldwork and explore the creation, evaluation, and implementation of diverse experiential learning methodologies. Recognizing the potency of experiential learning, these endeavors can contribute significantly to student success, nurturing a desire among students to integrate experiential learning exercises into their conventional classes seamlessly.
Since the study applied a quasi-experimental research design, several methodological limitations were identified as well: Firstly, it lacks randomization in assigning students to control and experimental groups. Secondly, the study lasted two years in sequential classes, which, combined with the lack of randomness, creates bias and confounding variables and reduces internal validity, making it difficult to make causal inferences. Thirdly, the study did not control for the nesting of instructors for scoring students’ assessments, which showed a lack of independence in observations and may have resulted in inflated statistical significance and inaccurate inferences. Lastly, the study did not consider the development of teachers, which might have improved their self-efficacy and, consequently, the effectiveness of pedagogy. Future studies should conduct a cross-sectional research design to control teachers’ development and train the teacher to assess each student separately to avoid a lack of independence.
In summary, by addressing these limitations and incorporating these suggested improvements, future research endeavors can elevate the effectiveness of integrating experiential learning in engineering education, paving the way for a more enriched and comprehensive learning experience for students.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study has introduced a robust pedagogical approach integrating experiential learning through structured field trips with traditional lectures, aiming to elevate students’ academic performance in fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) within the ARCH 261 and ARCH 262 engineering courses. The efficacy of this innovative, hybrid teaching method was assessed through a comprehensive questionnaire survey, revealing positive insights into its impact on student learning experiences. Field visits promote cognitive, social, and emotional learning outcomes by bridging the gap between academic understanding and practical application. Through these encounters, students can improve their abilities, broaden their knowledge, and cultivate a more thorough, active study style.
The analysis of the survey responses underscored the significant benefits students derived from this blended learning approach. Students believed structured field trips were an exceptional supplementary method to enhance their academic performance in CLOs when used with conventional lectures. Notably, the statistical analysis highlighted a compelling trend: first- and third-year students exhibited greater enjoyment during site visits and gained more new information compared to their senior counterparts. This crucial information has helped in understanding how to effectively integrate field trips into the curriculum by comparing the replies from these different groups; patterns and differences in expectations, involvement, and perceived value could be seen. By carefully analyzing these potential causes and offering suitable solutions, teachers can create strategies to boost student engagement and ensure that students at all study levels benefit from the desired educational experience. This valuable insight suggests a strategic temporal adjustment, recommending initiating site visits early in the program to optimize the students’ understanding and retention of information delivered in subsequent classes. The findings emphasize the importance of meticulous preparation for students’ initial field trips, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of essential information. Following the compilation of these responses, it is also recommended that the topic or level of complexity of the field trips be adjusted based on the students’ year.
Moreover, instructors are encouraged to employ creative strategies that foster student enjoyment and learning during subsequent field trips. This proactive approach to structuring and delivering field trips aligns with the surveyed students’ preferences and learning outcomes. The study used the Course Outcome Assessment Tool (COAT) to validate the survey results further and analyze student performance in specific CLOs across different semesters. The results revealed a substantial enhancement in academic performance during Semesters 162, 171, and 172 compared to the control group in Semester 161, where no field trips were conducted.
Moreover, the study also identified that students who have positive attitudes toward field trips, have prior experience in field trips, and enjoy field trips obtain better scores in fundamental Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). This speaks to the students’ positive mindset, which supports them in achieving better Course Learning Outcomes.
In light of these findings, the proposed hybrid teaching method is a compelling tool to guide students in understanding fundamental CLOs through critical, logical, and creative thinking. The study recommends adopting this method in various practical higher education courses, emphasizing its potential to fill the gap between theory and practice. By focusing on the learning process and fostering improvements in learner outcomes, this innovative approach enriches the educational experience for students and strengthens the symbiotic relationship between academia and industry. Integrating experiential learning in structured field trips with traditional lectures enhances students’ academic performance. It contributes to a more holistic and dynamic approach to education, preparing students for success in both the educational and professional realms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.L. and A.A.; methodology, W.L. and A.A.; software, W.L.; validation, W.L.; formal analysis, W.L.; investigation, W.L. and A.A.; resources, W.L. and A.A.; data curation, W.L. and A.A writing—original draft preparation, W.L. and A.A.; writing—review and editing, W.L.; visualization: W.L. and A.A.; supervision, W.L.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Prince Sultan university, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Prince Sultan University for providing the resources and support necessary to complete this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with a minor correction to the Acknowledgments. This change does not affect the scientific content of the article.

References

  1. Abdelhadi, A., Ibrahim, Y., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). Investigating engineering student learning style trends by using multivariate statistical analysis. Education Sciences, 9(1), 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Achen, R. M., Warren, C., Fazzari, A., Jorich, H., & Thorne, K. (2019). Evaluating graduate student out-of-class learning: The professional field trip. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(1), 96–107. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahmad, S. Z., Abu Bakar, A. R., & Ahmad, N. (2018). An evaluation of teaching methods of entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism programs. The International Journal of Management Education, 16(1), 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Allen, E., & Iano, J. (2019). Fundamentals of building construction: Materials and methods (7th ed.). John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asad, M. M., Naz, A., Churi, P., & Tahanzadeh, M. M. (2021). Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool to enhance experiential learning: A systematic literature review. Education Research International, 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bradberry, L. A., & De Maio, J. (2019). Learning by doing: The long-term impact of experiential learning programs on student success. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(1), 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bujang, M. A., Omar, E. D., & Baharum, N. A. (2018). A review on sample size determination for Cronbach’s alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(6), 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cantor, J. A. (1995). Experiential learning in higher education: Linking classroom and community. ASHE-ERIC higher education report No. 7; ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 10036-1183 ($18, plus $3.75 postage and handling). Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED404949.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2024).
  9. Carbone, A., Rayner, G. M., Ye, J., & Durandet, Y. (2020). Connecting curricula content with career context: The value of engineering industry site visits to students, academics, and industry. European Journal of Engineering Education, 45(6), 971–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chitty, E. G., & Hesp, P. A. (2024). The value of field studies in earth and environmental sciences: A review. Natural Sciences Education, 53(2), e70004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Crookston, B. M., Smith, V. B., Welker, A., & Campbell, D. B. (2020). Teaching hydraulic design: Innovative learning in the classroom and the workplace. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 146(3), 04020006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Duan, M., Dong, F., & Wang, J. (2024). Student-centered assessment research on holographic learning paradigm based on intelligent analytic hierarchy process in the teaching of bridge engineering course. Sustainability, 16(6), 2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Duke, N. K., Halvorsen, A.-L., Strachan, S. L., Kim, J., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2021). Putting PjBL to the test: The impact of project-based learning on second graders’ social studies and literacy learning and motivation in low-SES school settings. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 160–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eiris, R., Wen, J., & Gheisari, M. (2020). iVisit: Digital interactive construction site visits using 360-degree panoramas and virtual humans. Construction Research Congress 2020, 1106–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fabian, Y., Bollmann, K., Brang, P., Heiri, C., Olschewski, R., Rigling, A., Stofer, S., & Holderegger, R. (2019). How can science-practice gaps in nature conservation be closed? Information sources used by practitioners. Biological Conservation, 235, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gast, L. T. (2021, June 14–16). Using field trips in engineering education to facilitate understanding energy systems and technologies: An overview. EESD2021: Proceedings of the 10th Engineering Education for Sustainable Development Conference, “Building Flourishing Communities”, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10468/11597 (accessed on 9 January 2025).
  17. Gomez-Lanier, L. (2017). The experiential learning impact of international and domestic study tours: Class excursions that are more than field trips. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 129–144. [Google Scholar]
  18. Groves, C. (2019). The power of partnerships: Academic and high school libraries collaborate for student research success. Reference Services Review, 47(2), 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gubbels, J., Swart, N. M., & Groen, M. A. (2020). Everything in moderation: ICT and reading performance of Dutch 15-year-olds. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hadgraft, R. G., & Kolmos, A. (2020). Emerging learning environments in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Han, I. (2021). Immersive virtual field trips and elementary students’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Escobar Díaz, C., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2020). Technologies for the future of learning: State of the art. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 14(2), 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ismail, H. B., Ismail, A., Abu Bakar, A. A., Abu Talib, A. R., & Mohd Noor, N. A. (2021). The effectiveness of site visit approach in teaching and learning construction site safety: A case study in civil engineering faculty, universiti teknologi MARA, johor branch, pasir gudang campus. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(4), 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jin, J., Hwang, K.-E., & Kim, I. (2020). A study on the constructivism learning method for BIM/IPD collaboration education. Applied Sciences, 10(15), 5169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jusoh, M. N. H., & Hadibarata, T. (2024). Bridging theory and practice: The role of site visits in environmental engineering learning. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 3(1), 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kutnick, P., Lee, B. P.-Y., Chan, R. Y.-Y., & Chan, C. K. Y. (2020). Students’ engineering experience and aspirations within STEM education in Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Labib, W., Pasina, I., Abdelhadi, A., Bayram, G., & Nurunnabi, M. (2019). Learning style preferences of architecture and interior design students in Saudi Arabia: A survey. MethodsX, 6, 961–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & Albort-Morant, G. (2019). Promoting innovative experiential learning practices to improve academic performance: Empirical evidence from a Spanish Business School. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2), 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, J. H., McCullouch, B. G., & Chang, L.-M. (2008). Macrolevel and microlevel frameworks of experiential learning theory in construction engineering education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 134(2), 158–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lewis, L. H., & Williams, C. J. (1994). Experiential learning: Past and present. In L. Jackson, & R. S. Caffarella (Eds.), Experiential learning: A new approach (pp. 5–16). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lozano, R., Merrill, M., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F. (2017). Connecting competencies and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal. Sustainability, 9(10), 1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lyz, N., Lyz, A., Neshchadim, I., & Kompaniets, V. (2020, April 14–17). Blended learning and self-reflection as tools for developing IT students’ soft skills. 2020 V International Conference on Information Technologies in Engineering Education (Inforino) (pp. 1–4), Moscow, Russia. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 34(3), 1771–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mastrolembo Ventura, S., Castronovo, F., Nikolić, D., & Ciribini, A. L. C. (2022). Implementation of virtual reality in construction education: A content-analysis based literature review. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 27, 705–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ngo, T. T., & Chase, B. (2021). Students’ attitude toward sustainability and humanitarian engineering education using project-based and international field learning pedagogies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(2), 254–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Noreen, U. (2022). Enhancing student’s learning through trading simulation: A vehicle for experiential learning: Action research. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 30(1), 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pamungkas, S. F., Widiastuti, I., & Suharno. (2019). Kolb’s experiential learning for vocational education in mechanical engineering: A review, 030023. [CrossRef]
  40. Pham, H. C., Dao, N.-N., Pedro, A., & Le, Q. T. (2018). Virtual field trip for mobile construction safety education using 360-degree panoramic virtual reality. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 1174–1191. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Loaiza-Aguirre, M. I., Zúñiga-Ojeda, A., & Portuguez-Castro, M. (2021). Characterization of the teaching profile within the framework of education 4.0. Future Internet, 13(4), 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Salman, A. (2023). Field trips and their effect on student learning: A comparison of knowledge assessment for physical versus virtual field trips in a construction management course. Virtual Worlds, 2(3), 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Seifan, M., Dada, D., & Berenjian, A. (2019). The effect of virtual field trips as an introductory tool for an engineering real field trip. Education for Chemical Engineers, 27, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Seifan, M., Dada, O. D., & Berenjian, A. (2020). Real and virtual construction field trips affect students’ perceptions and career aspirations. Sustainability, 12(3), 1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tembrevilla, G., Phillion, A., & Zeadin, M. (2024). Experiential learning in engineering education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(1), 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vela, K. N., Pedersen, R. M., & Baucum, M. N. (2020). Improving perceptions of STEM careers through informal learning environments. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Verdín, D., Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2021). Recognizing the funds of knowledge of first-generation college students in engineering: An instrument development. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(3), 671–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wettstein, S. G. (2018). Self-paced, active problem-solving using immediate feedback (IF-AT; Scratch-off) forms in large classes. Advances in Engineering Education, 6(3), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhao, J., LaFemina, P., Carr, J., Sajjadi, P., Wallgrün, J. O., & Klippel, A. (2020, March 22–26). Learning in the field: Comparison of desktop, immersive virtual reality, and actual field trips for place-based STEM education. 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 893–902), Atlanta, GA, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, J., Wallgrün, J. O., Sajjadi, P., LaFemina, P., Lim, K. Y. T., Springer, J. P., & Klippel, A. (2022). Longitudinal effects in the effectiveness of educational virtual field trips. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 1008–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00562 g001
Figure 1. Experiential Learning Cycle.
Figure 1. Experiential Learning Cycle.
Education 15 00562 g001
Education 15 00562 g002
Figure 2. Research Methodology.
Figure 2. Research Methodology.
Education 15 00562 g002
Education 15 00562 g003
Figure 3. Photos taken during the field trips.
Figure 3. Photos taken during the field trips.
Education 15 00562 g003
Education 15 00562 g004
Figure 4. Percentage Enhancement in CLOs in Course # ARCH 261 (Control Group: Semester 161—No field trips; Experimental Group 1: Semester 162—1 field trip; Experimental Group 2: Semester 171—3 field trips; Experimental Group 3: Semester 172—2 field trips); Blue Area: Baseline, Orange Area: Enhancement).
Figure 4. Percentage Enhancement in CLOs in Course # ARCH 261 (Control Group: Semester 161—No field trips; Experimental Group 1: Semester 162—1 field trip; Experimental Group 2: Semester 171—3 field trips; Experimental Group 3: Semester 172—2 field trips); Blue Area: Baseline, Orange Area: Enhancement).
Education 15 00562 g004
Education 15 00562 g005
Figure 5. Percentage of Enhancement in CLOs in Course # ARCH 262 (Control Group: Semester 161—No field trips; Experimental Group 1: Semester 162—1 field trip; Experimental Group 2: Semester 171—3 field trips; Experimental Group 3: Semester 172—2 field trips); Blue Area: Baseline, Orange Area: Enhancement).
Figure 5. Percentage of Enhancement in CLOs in Course # ARCH 262 (Control Group: Semester 161—No field trips; Experimental Group 1: Semester 162—1 field trip; Experimental Group 2: Semester 171—3 field trips; Experimental Group 3: Semester 172—2 field trips); Blue Area: Baseline, Orange Area: Enhancement).
Education 15 00562 g005
Table 1. Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for Structures for Architects I (ARCH 261) and Structures for Architects II (ARCH 262).
Table 1. Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for Structures for Architects I (ARCH 261) and Structures for Architects II (ARCH 262).
Course NameCLO No.Course Learning Outcome Description
Structures for Architects I
ARCH 261		CLO 1Identify various structural elements, such as beams, trusses, and frames.
CLO 2Identify various structural systems and materials.
Structures for Architects II
ARCH 262		CLO 1Identify the use of basic structural systems and materials.
CLO 2Use structural systems efficiently.
Table 2. Field trips for each semester.
Table 2. Field trips for each semester.
SemesterNo. of Field TripsField Trip Destination
Semester 1610No field trips—Control semester
Semester 1621Mosque
Semester 17131. Al Riyadh metro station
2. A medical compound comprising seven hospitals, a hotel, and a boulevard
3. High-rise office building
Semester 17221. Al Riyadh metro station
2. Materials lab for testing concrete
Table 3. Demographic Analysis (n = 168).
Table 3. Demographic Analysis (n = 168).
CharacteristicsCategoriesCourses
ARCH 261 (n = 105)ARCH 262 (n = 63)
Frequency (n)Percentage (%)Frequency (n)Percentage (%)
Seniority LevelFreshman6662.9%3454.0%
Juniors1817.1%2031.7%
Seniors2120.0%914.3%
SemesterSemester #1616662.9%3454.0%
Semester #16298.6%914.3%
Semester #1711514.3%711.1%
Semester #1721514.3%1320.6%
Visited Field TripsNo—Control Group25 23.8%2336.5%
Yes—Experiment Group80 76.2%4063.5%
Table 4. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) across control and experiment groups.
Table 4. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) across control and experiment groups.
CLOGroupsGrades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
M ± SDLevene’s Test—
F-Value (p-Value)		t-Test (p-Value)ղ2 (95% CI)
ARCH 261
CLO 1Control7.56 ± 1.8678.713 ** (0.004)−2.381 ** (0.024)−0.718 (−1.176 to −0.256)
Experiment8.49 ± 1.072
CLO 2Control6.98 ± 2.1163.647 (0.059)−2.703 *** (0.008)−0.871 (−1.338 to −0.400)
Experiment8.19 ± 1.443
ARCH 262
CLO 1Control5.67 ± 1.9051.745 (0.191)−2.457 * (0.017)−0.643 (−1.166 to −0.115)
Experiment6.98 ± 2.088
CLO 2Control5.98 ± 2.09213.646 *** (<0.001)−4.462 *** (<0.001)−1.333 (−1.893 to −0.763)
Experiment8.11 ± 1.243
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) across levels of seniority.
Table 5. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) across levels of seniority.
CLOGroupsGrades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
M ± SDLevene’s Test—
F-Value (p-Value)		One-Way ANOVA—
F-Value (p-Value)		ղ2 (95% CI)
ARCH 261
CLO 1Freshman7.76 ± 1.4202.074 (0.122)17.858 *** (<0.001)0.259 (0.117 to 0.380)
Junior8.86 ± 0.589
Senior9.38 ± 0.472
CLO 2Freshman7.66 ± 1.5942.064 (0.132)13.113 *** (<0.001)0.205 (0.074 to 0.325)
Junior8.81 ± 0.667
Senior9.24 ± 1.509
ARCH 262
CLO 1Freshman5.66 ± 1.890 2.938 (0.061)12.291 *** (<0.001)0.291 (0.100 to 0.438)
Junior6.83 ± 1.962
Senior8.94 ± 0.682
CLO 2Freshman6.50 ± 1.9772.053 (0.144)11.261 *** (<0.001)0.273 (0.086 to 0.422)
Junior7.93 ± 1.280
Senior9.17 ± 0.500
*** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) across frequency of field trips.
Table 6. Comparison of grades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) across frequency of field trips.
CLOGroupsGrades in Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
M ± SDLevene’s Test—
F-Value (p-Value)		One-Way ANOVA—
F-Value (p-Value)		ղ2 (95% CI)
ARCH 261
CLO 107.76 ± 1.420 1.428 (0.239)12.047 *** (<0.001)0.264 (0.113 to 0.378)
19.06 ± 0.391
29.50 ± 0.378
38.83 ± 0.673
CLO 207.66 ± 1.5941.558 (0.245)8.629 *** (<0.001)0.204 (0.066 to 0.318)
18.83 ± 1.199
29.30 ± 0.784
38.90 ± 0.784
ARCH 262
CLO 105.66 ± 1.8900.687 (0.564)4.649 ** (0.006)0.191 (0.021 to 0.331)
17.33 ± 1.500
27.46 ± 2.126
37.71 ± 2.307
CLO 206.50 ± 1.9770.290 (0.833)6.438 *** (<0.001)0.247 (0.055 to 0.387)
18.33 ± 0.791
28.62 ± 1.277
37.71 ± 1.551
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7. Correlation between Course Learning Outcomes, attitude, prior experience, and enjoyment.
Table 7. Correlation between Course Learning Outcomes, attitude, prior experience, and enjoyment.
12345
ARCH 261
1CLO 1 Marks1.000
2CLO 2 Marks0.253 **1.000
3Attitude 0.325 **0.357 **1.000
4Prior Experience 0.423 **0.346 **0.228 **1.000
5Enjoyment0.250 **0.426 **0.217 **0.0751.000
ARCH 262
1CLO 1 Marks1.000
2CLO 2 Marks0.526 **1.000
3Attitude 0.729 **0.790 **1.000
4Prior Experience 0.645 **0.660 **0.621 **1.000
5Enjoyment0.669 **0.687 **0.686 **0.490 **1.000
** p < 0.01.
Table 8. Regression analysis on the predictors of Course Learning Outcomes CLO 1 and CLO 2.
Table 8. Regression analysis on the predictors of Course Learning Outcomes CLO 1 and CLO 2.
Model 1–2: CLO 1 GradesModel 3–4: CLO 2 Grades
βt-Valuep-Valueβt-Valuep-Value
ARCH 261
(Constant)5.867 ***11.662 ***<0.0016.298 ***17.112 ***<0.001
Attitude 0.329 *2.275 *0.0250.267 *2.531 *0.013
Prior Experience 0.649 *2.037 *0.0040.996 ***4.273 ***<0.001
Enjoyment 1.116 ***4.141 ***<0.0010.632 **3.203 **0.002
R226.4%32.3%
F-value12.098 ***16.088 ***
p-value<0.001<0.001
ARCH 262
(Constant)2.123 *2.418 *0.0191.3271.6320.108
Attitude 1.147 ** 2.960 **0.0041.539 ***4.292 ***<0.001
Prior Experience 1.176 *2.613 *0.0111.026 *2.465 *0.017
Enjoyment 1.161**2.795 **0.0071.051 **2.732 **0.008
R263.4%70.2%
F-value34.092 ***46.284 ***
p-value<0.001<0.001
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 9. COAT results for CLOs.
Table 9. COAT results for CLOs.
Course CodeCLOSemester
161
(Control
Group)		162
(Experiment
Group 1)		% of Enhancement in 162171
(Experiment
Group 2)		% of Enhancement in 171172
(Experiment
Group 3)		% of Enhancement in 172
ARCH 261CLO 180%90%10%100%20%89%9%
ARCH 261CLO 280%90%10%91%11%89%9%
ARCH 262CLO 155%59%4%76%21%69%14%
ARCH 262CLO 255%77%22%76%21%75%20%
Column highlighted in Grey: % of enhancement in each experiment group.
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

Labib, W.; Abdelsattar, A. Examining the Impact of Construction Field Trips on Learning Outcomes: Perspectives from Structural Architecture Courses. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050562

AMA Style

Labib W, Abdelsattar A. Examining the Impact of Construction Field Trips on Learning Outcomes: Perspectives from Structural Architecture Courses. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(5):562. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050562

Chicago/Turabian Style

Labib, Wafa, and Amal Abdelsattar. 2025. "Examining the Impact of Construction Field Trips on Learning Outcomes: Perspectives from Structural Architecture Courses" Education Sciences 15, no. 5: 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050562

APA Style

Labib, W., & Abdelsattar, A. (2025). Examining the Impact of Construction Field Trips on Learning Outcomes: Perspectives from Structural Architecture Courses. Education Sciences, 15(5), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050562

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