Teaching Construction Management Capstone as a Remote Course

Paper ID #35349

Teaching Construction Management Capstone as a Remote Course

Prof. Eric Anderson R.A., Farmingdale State College

Eric Anderson is an architect and educator with more than thirty years in educational and non-profit facil-ities planning and management. He has overseen the planning and/or construction of over $ 1 billion ofcapital improvement for non-profit and educational institutions in New Mexico, West Virginia, Nevada,and New York. He is a registered architect in New York and West Virginia. Professional memberships in-clude the American Institute of Architects and the American Society of Engineering Education. Teachingexperiences includes graduate design studios at the UNLV School of Architecture from 1997-2000, andas an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Architecture at Farmingdale State College from 2006-2017, teachingArchitectural Design III and Architectural Design IV. He currently serves as an Assistant Professor ofArchitecture and Construction Management, teaching Architectural Design III, Architectural Design IV,and several courses in Construction Management including Materials and Methods, Quantity Surveyingand Estimating, and the CM Capstone course.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

1

TEACHING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CAPSTONE REMOTE

Teaching Construction Management Capstone as a Remote Course

Eric E. Anderson

Farmingdale State College – SUNY

Department of Architecture and Construction Management

2


Abstract

The capstone project course for Construction Management Engineering Technology

students (CON496), has been taught by guiding students to demonstrate integration of the various

skills for drawing management and plan reading, technical calculations, materials selection, and

project management (scope of work, estimating, risk management and scheduling) acquired in the

course of study for the 4-year program at Farmingdale State College.

Until the onset of the pandemic, students were organized in groups and provided a project

brief based on project requirements from a project sponsor (client) engaged as part of the project

development process. The in-person course met weekly in a computer lab to provide hardware

and programs to

– Plan and participate in a field visit to review the project site.

– Develop the scope of the project through a series of due diligence assignments.

– Present preliminary findings for scope, WBS, and budget to the project sponsor.

– Verify the details and data to develop a viable construction project plan during a verification

phase.

– Present the final technical report to the project sponsor and course instructor.

Like most colleges and programs, our courses went to remote teaching partially during the

spring semester 2020 and migrated to remote teaching full-time where practical for Fall 2020. The

challenge to maintain the applied learning focus of the course and deliver it in a remote

synchronous fashion was met by integrating the emergency as part of the development of the

project, supplemented by self-directed activities integrated into the project assign-

ments. Integration activities included:

3


– Developing the field trip in accordance with state workplace guidelines and using that activity

as an introduction to examine the development of scope and cost for general conditions.

– Using a program management contract to organize group activities and provide a concurrent

examination of project activities to develop an awareness of ethics in construction

management.

– Using webinars from the EPA Sustainable Materials Management program and LinkedIn

Learning as virtual tutorials for project development.

– Coordinate class presentation and discussion with regularly scheduled group tutorials and the

creation of an online Request for Information inquiry file that was available to the entire class

for examination and discussion during scope development and verification.

When the class evaluation becomes available at the end of 2020, it will be compared to

previous class evaluations to determine if the modification of class activities to work within the

constraints of remote class delivery was an effective change to the class program and make a list

of best practices to assist with future syllabus development for capstone courses.

4


Introduction

The author has taught the capstone project course for Construction Management

Engineering Technology (CM) students (CON496) for four years. The course description

describes the goals and outcomes as follows:

This is a capstone course. It utilizes skills and knowledge acquired in various courses in the

curriculum and general education courses to produce a real-life project. In this course, students

follow a faculty driven structured process to integrate various components of a project. This

course introduces very little new material, rather it helps the student to synthesize skills and

knowledge learned in other courses to apply in real-life situations.

Prerequisite(s): Department Approval, Upper Division Status, recommended in the final

semester, CON357, ARC 364 and CON401W. Level: 400 Credits:3 (FSC Website)

The syllabus adapted for the course in 2017 guided students to demonstrate integration of

the various skills for drawing management and plan reading, technical calculations, materials

selection, and project management (scope of work, estimating, risk management and scheduling)

acquired in the 4-year CM program at Farmingdale State College. The syllabus used before 2017

presented a task-oriented project based on a scenario developed from projects typical to

construction project management in the Long Island region with minimal external input.

The immediate changes that were implemented in course delivery were made to enhance

the applied learning experience to engage non-profit organizations that had capital project goals at

real sites, or use realistic scenarios at real sites. The objectives required definition of project

budget, project scope, project constructability, project budget, and project schedule. Of the five

projects discussed in this paper, four had project sponsors, and one had a realistic scenario based

on actual sites

5


Until the onset of the pandemic, students were organized in groups of 2 or 3 to develop and

present a project response. Initially, the early project briefs were drawn from the material

developed from the task-oriented project. As project sponsors were identified and potential

projects were identified, a shift from task-specific projects to project phase development evolved.

Construction types and use group classifications were comparable from course to course. The

projects developed from 2017-2019 include:

• PROJECT 1: Construction of a swimming pool complex and parking improvements for a

youth group camp in the Long Island region of New York. (Spring 2018)

• PROJECT 2: Construction of a dining hall complex with associated sanitary and storm

water retention infrastructure in the Hudson Valley regions of New York (Summer 2018)

• PROJECT 3: Construction of a training conference center and parking improvement for

the youth group camp engaged for Project 1. (Spring 2019)

• PROJECT 4: Construction of two projects based on consequential development of housing

on a site occupied by a non-profit organization, which relocated to another site. This

project included planning relocation of assets and operations in addition to the development

of scope, costs and schedule. (Summer 2019 – combined with ARC 486).

The scale and scope of these projects were approximately 10,000 – 20,000 gross square feet.

The semester project brief outlined the key project requirements from a project sponsor

(client), who was engaged as part of the project development process. The in-person course met

weekly in a computer lab to provide hardware and programs to:

– Plan and participate in a field visit to review the project site.

– Develop the scope of the project through a series of due diligence assignments.

– Present preliminary findings for scope, WBS, and budget to the project sponsor.

6


– Verify the details and data to develop a viable construction project plan

– Present the final technical report to the project sponsor and course instructor.

During the development of projects 1 through 4, changes in the syllabus were made to

eliminate building design activities that had been incorporated into the course prior to 2017 and

increase the emphasis on review of established designs, preparation of preliminary and final budget

projections for direct costs, indirect costs, project margins and contingencies, and fees for permits

and design services; scope of work, work breakdown structure (WBS) and project schedule

documents.

This paper is an overview of the changes required to move the course delivery from in-

person instruction to remote synchronous delivery in the context of pandemic restrictions. Key

changes are noted to provide the curriculum and technical elements to provide a comprehensive

capstone experience.

Planning and Delivering the Course During the Pandemic

Like most colleges and programs, our courses went to remote teaching partially during the

spring semester 2020 and migrated to remote teaching where practical for Fall 2020. The CON496

course was scheduled for the fall semester with 23 students, which was consistent with the course

enrollment for the previous fall semesters when the course was offered.

Planning revisions to the delivery of the course began in June 2020. The fall semester

project sponsor (fifth project) was located in western Connecticut. The project site (a 160+ acre

youth group camp adjacent to an environmentally sensitive watershed) had two structures – a

dining hall (use group A-3, construction Type V) and a training center (use group B and R-1,

construction Type V) that was assembled in an ad-hoc manner by project sponsor volunteers

approximately 20 years ago. Both facilities had approved certificates of occupancy from the local

7


project jurisdiction. The overall project for both facilities envisioned making exterior shell

improvements for thermal performance and service life.

The student groups were organized in groups of 3 (one group of 2 identified late in group

formation due to late enrollment). Group formation took place in June, at least 60 days before the

start of the fall semester. The advanced participation of the student well before the start of the

semester permitted pre-course planning that was well received by the students.

Key changes to maintain the applied learning focus of the course and deliver it in a remote

synchronous fashion integrated the emergency as part of the development of the project:

• Curation and presentation of resources - Building a ‘lifeboat’ of resources based on guided

discovery of construction newsfeeds and compilation of authoritative documents and websites.

• Using the AIA B172 program management contract to organize group activities and provide a

concurrent examination of project activities to develop an awareness of ethics in construction

management.

• Curating and using webinars from the EPA Sustainable Materials Management program and

LinkedIn Learning as virtual tutorials for project development.

• Field trip restrictions as a generator for project management and development: Developing

the field trip in accordance with state workplace guidelines and using that activity as an

introduction to examine the development of scope and cost for general conditions.

• Community Engagement – Recruiting a project sponsor provides the “edge” that creates a goal

for students to develop meaningful project solutions to present to the project sponsor, with the

knowledge that the sponsor has been actively engaged because of the value they see in the

information and presentations resulting from student project development

8


• Course management system– Making the course management system a home base for the

lifeboat of resources, student collaboration, student accountability, and instructor/student

mentoring.

• Opportunities found to strengthen remote delivery of the course

o Remote Mentoring

– Coordinating class presentation and discussion with regularly scheduled group

mentoring sessions and submission of journals in the course management system to

track and discuss group progress and roadblocks

– Creation of an online Request for Information inquiry file using Google Forms

available to the entire class for examination and discussion during scope development

and verification.

o External assessment – The project assessment incorporated real professional relationships

in the project review. Project sponsors and leaders in the regional construction sector were

engaged in the ongoing development of the project by the students.

RESOURCE CURATION AND PRESENTATION

The curation of resources to reduce the anxiety of students in research activities was a specific

goal to ensure students have equitable access to base resources. It is not appropriate to assume

that all students have equal access to equipment, bandwidth, or campus with the ongoing pandemic

restrictions for campus access. During the spring 2020 semester, review of technical resources for

the project became a critical course development activity to build a “resource lifeboat” of

immediately accessible textural and graphic files on various project topics, and to identify and

curate webpage links and pertinent videos for the course. Based on the project scope, the key

technical topics were

9


• Program management agreement template

• Deconstruction of facilities

• Building enclosure retrofits

• Alignment of project mobilization and operations with pandemic prevention regulations

• Storm water pollution prevention

• Preliminary and detailed cost estimating resources

• Preliminary and detailed scheduling resources

Video courses were also curated in support of student research. Curating and using

webinars from the EPA Sustainable Materials Management program (https://www.epa.gov/smm)

and LinkedIn Learning (through the college library portal) as virtual tutorials for project

development, especially during the project scope development phase. It was recommended to

students to use these resources as an orientation for the research topics listed so they would know

what to look for in the review of the curated technical documents.

A review of technical documents resulted in posting over 300-500 files with technical

information and links to key web resources with many technical files, such as

– Whole Building Design Guide website (https://www.wbdg.org/)

– EPA Sustainable Materials Management website (https://www.epa.gov/smm)

– HUD Policy Development & Research website (https://www.huduser.gov/portal/about/research.html)

– Building Science Corporation website (https://www.buildingscience.com/)

Subscription to online construction newsfeeds, such as Builder (Hanley Wood -

https://www.builderonline.com/) and Probuilder (National Association of Home Builders -

https://www.probuilder.com/) provided ongoing “news blasts” that were distributed to the students

10


with the Announcements feature in Blackboard. Pertinent newsfeed articles were sent, normally

with 24-36 hours of receipt to providing ongoing broadcasting of topical information.

Building the “resource lifeboat” was essential to supporting autonomous student research

in response to the pandemic restrictions to normal collegiate resources. The curation of these

materials would give students greater flexibility to search and use the videos, websites and files

during the time they allocate to do the work, which is not necessarily a set block of time during

conventional business hours. The course instructor has a datum of resources to provide guidance

to additional research areas not collected in compiling the core project topics.

THE PANDEMIC BECOMES A TEACHING TOOL

Due to the workplace requirements in response to the pandemic in New York and

Connecticut, a review of the requirements for internships in the SUNY system and the

requirements for managing workplace occupancy at business sites and youth camps in Connecticut

had to be reviewed and organized to develop a working model for student field trips. Field trips

to the project site by students unaccompanied by faculty is an important part of the course to

develop student due diligence for review of project conditions and scope. There was no model for

unaccompanied visits to project sites during a pandemic. All field trips by students are voluntary.

Due to the number of internships established in various college programs, the State

University of New York (SUNY) central administration had developed guidelines for internship

sponsors to engage students remotely and in-person. These guidelines became the basis for

developing an approved course-related field trip. Approximately 5-6 weeks was used to negotiate

the terms for approval of the trip; the major modifications included:

• Providing extensive video and static images of the project sites and context to permit students

that did not volunteer to travel to the site to have authoritative review materials

11


• Restricting the student visitors to the site to 1 student per group

A detailed plan conforming to SUNY requirement for planning student travel was

submitted, with correspondence from the project sponsor describing visitor preparation and

conduct during the site visit. Campus health and safety officers in charge of campus pandemic

monitoring student safety and liability of the campus for pandemic-related exposure reviewed and

approved the site visitation plan.

The site was approximately two hours from the campus. Two of the eight student groups

elected not to visit the site. The immediate impacts of the visit preparation and actual activity by

the six student groups included:

• Review of all instructor-prepared video and image documents, with sponsor-suppled

documents to prepare a visitation strategy to confirm measurements and topography, identify

potential mobilization and storm water retention strategies

• Development of student group relationships with the chief executive officer of the non-profit

organization to enhance the due diligence review at the site and experience informal

commentary and changes to the course project brief.

• Collaboration between the non-participating groups and participating groups to confirm

information in the video and static images that would not have necessarily occurred in visits

with a less-constrained context.

• The preliminary cost projection and the final cost estimate had to incorporate the costs

associated with workplace pandemic prevention requirements imposed by the state of

Connecticut. In previous courses, the identification and compilation of general condition costs

were based on allocations or percentage based on the cost of the construction without a detail

exploration of how those cost are affected by conditions external to the project. Student groups

12


had to research current articles and on-line construction newsfeeds since no historical data was

available to assess the impact of pandemic prevention in the construction workplace. There

was extensive discussion on issues regarding the pandemic and general conditions. Several

students working full or part time in the construction sector used their formal and information

networks of supervisor, colleagues and subcontractors to develop their strategies for

developing these costs.

CONTENT MANAGEMENT AS SOCIAL MEDIA

Remote teaching required replacement of the distribution and discussion of many resources

during class sessions. Drawings, specifications, codes, spreadsheets, and other textural

instruments would have been printed and distributed in class and reviewed in a general session or

in individual group meetings after an in-class review period. Our college uses Blackboard as the

course management system. Prior to the pandemic, Blackboard would have been a simple

repository for documents with no interface to the interactive portions of the course site.

The college hosted presentations from Ken Reid (Ohio Northern University) - American

Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) on effective teaching in March 2019. His presentation

noted design of course management sites should model how students use various social media

applications and that faculty should review the structure and content of course management sites

to make it engaging. This presentation influenced the revisions to the course management site

template that had been used for the previous four capstone projects.

The course site was redeveloped to be the “home base” for course students by creating a

structure for information, consultation and presentation that mirrored the relationship that students

will have with social media. The instructor committed to responding to all inquiries by email, in

journal entries, and with the RFI feature within a 24-to-36-hour time frame. This encouraged

13


students to maintain continuity in the project development process similar to pre-bid or pre-

proposal communication in the commercial construction and project management sector.

To assist with student success, the course management site acted as a hub for all research,

collaborative, assessment and mentoring activities. Key changes in the site included

• Revising the landing page provided key course information and links to on-line student

services created to provide a seamless transition from in-person to remote learning. While

many of the links were not specifically related to deploying course resources, they became a

convenient access point for students to seek help with many student related services, thus

increasing the value of the site to the students.

• A wayfinding strategy to organize pertinent information provide feedback into restructuring

the organization of the course materials into themes vs. modules

• The journal section of the site became the focus for tracking group progress, conflict, and

reflection. Instructor feedback for weekly reports and expanding on requests for information

were provided weekly.

• Using Google Forms, a Request for Information (RFI) system was created give groups one

point to make formal inquiries on project scope, verification and presentation. All groups were

advised that all RFI inquiries and responses would be posted weekly and discussed in class

during the general session. Over 90 inquiries from the eight groups were made during the first

seven weeks of the course, when each group was developing costs, scope and schedule for

their project proposal. The RFI feature, which was linked to each phase of the course modules,

was effective in developing both course and group discussion each week.

14


PRESENTATION OF THEMES VS MODULE

The structure of the Learning Modules evolved in the transition to remote learning. The

use of Blackboard for the courses for Projects 1 through 4 were driven by specific assignments

interspersed with the two milestones for preliminary and final presentation. This structure was

suitable when there was in-person teaching that drove completion of the assignments. The course

CMS structure was redesigned to reinforce the key phases of the capstone project was revised to

address the real division of work for the project:

• Project Brief and Agreement: The project brief for the entire course was place in this module,

as was the program management agreement that each group signed to affirm the deliverables,

they had responsibility for in responding to the project sponsor and meeting the project goals.

The use of the agreement in supporting the discussion of Ethics in Construction resulted in

both individual and group review of the agreement in an ongoing basis.

• Project Scope Development: All assignments, resource documents, links to LinkedIn Learning

videos and project drawings associated with all work required to make a preliminary

presentation of technical scope, preliminary budget, project work breakdown and schedule was

hosted here. A link to the RFI feature was posted to the section for ease of access.

• Project Verification: All assignments, resource documents, links to LinkedIn Learning videos

and project drawings associated with all work required to make a final presentation of technical

scope and submittal drawings, detailed cost estimate and project schedule was hosted here. A

link to the RFI feature was posted to the section for ease of access.

OPPORTUNITIES NOT CULTIVATED BEFORE THE PANDEMIC

Opportunities in instructional and research activity resulting from the change to remote instruction

included:

15


• Guided field visit of previous projects was replaced with autonomous field visit in response to

the limitations of workplace pandemic mitigation. Groups worked with curated videos/images

and client guidance not mediated by the course instructor

• More collaboration with the project sponsor enabled by the use of the RFI inquiry and response

system. The formal procedures of RFIs were seen as a research method which resulted in both

technical feedback and client input which was more focused and transactional for the students.

• Using the recommendations of the March 2019 presentation by Ken Reid on developing course

management sites to encourage student patterns of using these sites as they use social media

for communication and collaboration.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATION FROM IN-PERSON

AND REMOTE DELIVERY COURSES

Because the switchover to remote learning was both sudden and without formal procedures

for creating learning opportunities specifically for project-based courses, the only data that is

available to identify observable changes in student satisfaction with course delivery in the remote

learning mode are student evaluations from the previous courses (spring 2018, summer 2018,

spring 2019, and summer 2019). Student evaluations at Farmingdale State College have twenty-

one questions (Student Course Evaluations). These questions include:

1. The instructor's course material was well-organized.

2. The instructor presented the course material in a manner that made it interesting.

3. The instructor encouraged student participation.

4. The instructor seemed to care about our learning.

5. The instructor was available to students outside of class time; either during office hours or after

class.

6. The instructor communicated the subject matter clearly.

7. The instructor responded effectively to questions raised in class.

16


8. The instructor attempted to make the course relevant to the students.

9. The exams and/ or assignments were fair.

10. The grading system was clearly stated.

11. The assignments helped me to learn the subject matter.

12. This was a challenging course academically.

13. I learned a great deal from this course.

14. Overall, I would rate this course highly.

15. The pace at which the instructor covered the material was good.

16. The textbook or other supplementary material helped me to learn the course material.

17. The workload required for this course was heavy.

18. I enjoyed this class.

19. Overall, I would rate this instructor highly

20. This course was required for my major.

21. Overall, I would rate this instructor highly.

Six of the twenty-one questions were selected to review the data.

Figure 1

COURSE EVALUATION

QUESTIONS

IMPACTS OF

COURSE DELIVERY REVISIONS

[1] The instructor's course material was

well-organized.

Curating materials to develop a resource lifeboat of

textural, graphic and video sources.

[2] The instructor presented the course

material in a manner that made it

interesting.

Revision from tasks to project agreement, project

scope development, and project verification.

[3] The instructor encouraged student

participation.

Student participation in field trip for COVID planning,

weekly journals and meetings, RFI inquiries

[4] The instructor seemed to care about

our learning.

Course management software for building mentoring

and collegial relationships.

[6] The instructor communicated the

subject matter clearly.

Leverages announcement for technical newsfeeds,

RFI responses to enable student-managed inquiries.

[7] The instructor responded effective-

ly to questions raised in class.

Course management systems organized to integrate

into large and small discussion/presentations

Course evaluation categories compared to changes required for remote course delivery.

These are the summaries of the evaluations for the six questions across the five course sections;

four in-person classes (2018-2019, and one remote class (2020).

17


Table 1

IN-PERSON INSTRUCTION REMOTE

The instructor's course material was

well-organized.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 41% 60% 80% 40% 81%

4-Agree 29% 30% 20% 40% 10%

3-Neither Agree or Disagree 12% 10% 0% 20% 0%

2-Disagree 6% 0% 0% 0% 5%

1-Strongly Disagree 12% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Summary of Student Response to Questions 1 (Student Course Evaluations)

The review of data in Table 1 suggests the recommendations outlined in creating a course data

lifeboat was effective in maintaining high rating review for curation, organization and deployment

of course resources when compared to the in-person course delivery.

Table 2

The instructor presented the course

material in a manner that made it

interesting.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 59% 70% 60% 40% 62%

4-Agree 35% 30% 40% 40% 29%


2-Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



The review of data in Table 2 suggests the recommendations outlined in course revision from tasks

to project agreement, project scope development, and project verification was effective in

sustaining high rating review for delivery of instruction, consultation and project review when

compared to the in-person course delivery.

18


Table 3

The instructor encouraged student

participation.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 76% 70% 70% 60% 90%

4-Agree 24% 30% 20% 40% 5%


2-Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



The review of data in Table 3 suggests the recommendations outlined in student participation in

field trip for COVID planning, weekly journals and meetings, and creating RFI inquiries was

effective in sustaining high rating review for the management and encouragement of student

participation when compared to the in-person course delivery.

Table 4

The instructor seemed to care about our

learning.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 71% 90% 90% 80% 86%

4-Agree 23% 10% 10% 20% 5%


2-Disagree 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%



The review of data in Table 4 suggests the recommendations outlined in the extensive use and

adaptation of course management software for building mentoring and collegial relationships was

effective in sustaining high rating review for the efforts of the instructor to engage with students

during the remote course when compared to the in-person course delivery.

19


Table 5

The instructor communicated the

subject matter clearly.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 47% 60% 70% 40% 71%

4-Agree 29% 30% 10% 60% 14%


2-Disagree 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%



The review of data in Table 5 suggests the recommendations outlined to make announcements for

technical newsfeeds and RFI responses to enable student-managed inquiries was effective in

maintaining a constant rating review for the efforts of the instructor to engage with students during

the remote course when compared to the in-person course delivery.

Table 6

The instructor responded effectively to

questions raised in class.

Spring

18

Summer

18

Spring

19

Summer

19

Fall

20

5-Strongly Agree 76% 80% 80% 60% 90%

4-Agree 24% 20% 10% 40% 5%


2-Disagree 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%



The review of data in Table 6 suggests the recommendations outlined to deploy course

management systems to integrate into large and small discussion/presentations was effective in

sustaining high rating review for the efforts of the instructor to engage with students during the

remote course when compared to the in-person course delivery.

Additional review or compilation of data from the spring 2021 should be considered to

determine if improvements to course planning and delivery resulting from the feedback made in

the fall 2020 semester will have justify the refinements made for the current project.

20


Closing the Loop: Recommendations to Colleagues.

The lessons learned from the need to shift from in-person instruction to remote learning for

the CON496 capstone project course offers a framework for assessing course preparation and

developing course resources and sponsors. Figure 2 is a summary of these lessons learned

presented to the faculty of the School of Engineering Technology at Farmingdale State College in

February 2021.

Figure 2

Summary of Lessons Learned from Remote Teaching/Learning in Capstone Course.

21


Instructors need to invest additional time and resources to develop the networking

capabilities of course management systems such as Blackboard to leverage its ability to provide

seamless networking of students and external professionals to model the project planning and

delivery structures that students will encounter in their post-collegiate work environment.

Establishing and refining the course syllabus, course resources and course management

site to mirror aspects of student networking and collaboration of social media networks with course

management resources provide great opportunities to:

• Have flexibility in student engagement, especially with working students;

• Have greater contact with project sponsors with meetings that are more opportunistic due to

electronic availability.

Student formation as emerging professionals is enhanced as long as the instructor is constantly

curating project information, advisement, and reinforcing project goals.

22


REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (2021) Getting organized to engage your students [Presentation handout],

Farmingdale State College, School of Engineering Technology Faculty Professional

Development

Course Description CON 496 - Farmingdale State College. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2021,

from https://www.farmingdale.edu/courses/?cid=CON+496

Reid, K. (2019). Can we engage students and make our lives easier? [PowerPoint slides].

Farmingdale State College. http://www.fsc.edu

Reid, K. (2019). Success and happiness as a professor – exploring “We’ve always done it that

way.” [PowerPoint slides]. Farmingdale State College. http://www.fsc.edu

Student Course Evaluation, CON 496 - Capstone Project (Spring 2018). (2018, January–May).

[Evaluation data for course delivery and instructor performance]. Farmingdale State

College. https://shib.axiommentor.com/Fac/reporting/teaching/Courses.cfm

Student Course Evaluation, CON 496 - Capstone Project (Summer 2018). (2018, May–August).






23


Student Course Evaluation, CON 496 - Capstone Project (Summer 2019). (2019, May–August).






Documents

Teaching Construction Management Capstone as a Remote Course