Digital Twin and Web-Based Virtual Gaming Technologies for Online Education: A Case of Construction Management and Engineering
Source abstract
Abstract
Mixed reality is advancing exponentially in some innovative industries, including manufacturing and aerospace. However, advanced applications of these technologies in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) businesses remain nascent. While it is in demand, the use of these technologies in developing the AEC digital pedagogy and for improving professional competence have received little attention. This paper presents a set of five novel digital technologies utilising virtual and augmented reality and digital twin, which adds value to the literature by showing their usefulness in the delivery of construction courses. The project involved designing, developing, and implementing a construction augmented reality (AR), including Piling AR (PAR) and a virtual tunnel boring machine (VTBM) module. The PAR is a smartphone module that presents different elements of a building structure, the footing system, and required equipment for footing construction. VTBM is developed as a multiplayer and avatar-included module for experiencing mechanisms of a tunnel boring machine. The novelty of this project is that it developed innovative immersive construction modules, practices of implementing digital pedagogy, and presenting the capacity of virtual technologies for education. This paper is also highly valuable to educators since it shows how a set of simple to complex technologies can be used for teaching various courses from a distance, either in emergencies such as corona virus disease (COVID-19) or as a part of regular teaching. This paper is a step forward to designing future practices full of virtual education appropriate to the new generation of digitally savvy students.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: BIM and Construction Integration · Augmented Reality Applications · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Built Environment, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Bliemel, M.J., and Wang, C. (2016, January 6–8). A Flipped classroom model to teach skill-based contents for a large construction technology course. Proceedings of the 40th AUBEA 2016, Radical Innovation in the Built Environment, Cairns, Australia.
2. Liu, J., Wang, Q., Liang, S., and Zhang, Z. (2019, January 28–29). Design of virtual reality combined with blended experimental teaching mode. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Advanced Education Research and Modern Teaching (AERMT 2019), Jinan, China.10.2991/aermt-19.2019.31 ↗
3. Optimising the learning process with immersive virtual reality and non-immersive virtual reality in an educational environment10.1504/IJMLO.2020.103908 ↗
4. Lee, A.L., DeBest, M., Koeniger-Donohue, R., Strowman, S.R., and Mitchell, S.E. (2019). The feasibility and acceptability of using virtual world technology for interprofessional education in palliative care: A mixed methods study. J. Interprof. Care, 1–11.10.1080/13561820.2019.1643832 ↗
5. The application of virtual reality technology in architectural pedagogy for building constructions10.1016/j.aej.2019.06.002 ↗
6. Task complexity and learning styles in situated virtual learning environments for construction higher education10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103148 ↗
7. Site visit application in construction education: A descriptive study of faculty members
8. The effectiveness of traditional tools and computer-aided technologies for health and safety training in the construction sector: A systematic review10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.003 ↗
9. A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0 ↗
10. Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: A systematic literature review10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002 ↗
11. Advantages and limits of virtual reality in learning processes: Briviesca in the fifteenth century10.1007/s10055-019-00389-7 ↗
12. How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0 ↗
13. Project-based learning (PBL) through the incorporation of digital technologies: An evaluation based on the experience of serving teachers10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.056 ↗
14. An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning10.3102/0013189X09339057 ↗
15. “Active” and “passive” learning of three-dimensional object structure within an immersive virtual reality environment10.3758/BF03195466 ↗
16. The role of virtual reality in built environment education10.11120/jebe.2008.03010005 ↗
17. Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., and Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15.10.3390/ijerph15061204 ↗
18. Klotz, L., and Grant, D. (2009, January 5–7). A balanced view of sustainability in civil engineering and construction. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1061/41020(339)136 ↗
19. The relationships between students’ conceptions of learning engineering and their preferences for classroom and laboratory learning environments10.1002/j.2168-9830.2009.tb01017.x ↗
20. A hands-on, interdisciplinary laboratory program and educational model to strengthen a radar curriculum for broad distribution
21. Leicht, R.M., Lewis, A., Riley, D.R., Messner, J.I., and Darnell, B. (2009, January 5–7). Assessing traits for success in individual and team performance in an engineering course. Proceedings of the ASCE Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1061/41020(339)138 ↗
22. Toto, R., and Nguyen, H. (2009, January 18–21). Flipping the work design in an industrial engineering course. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE’09. 39th IEEE, San Antonio, TX, USA.10.1109/FIE.2009.5350529 ↗
23. Monson, M.C., Homayouni, H., Dossick, C., and Anderson, A. (, January 14–17). Improving the understanding of BIM concepts through a flipped learning lab environment: A work in progress. Proceedings of the ASEE 122nd Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA, USA.
24. Wang, S., Cheah, C.Y., and Chew, D.A. (2005). Dynamics of strategic management in the Chinese construction industry. Manag. Decis.10.1108/00251740510593558 ↗
25. Case-based flipped classroom approach to teach sustainable infrastructure and decision-making
26. Does a case-based online group project increase students’ satisfaction with interaction in online courses?10.1177/1469787416654800 ↗
27. Tête à tête Reading groups and peer learning10.1177/1469787405049945 ↗
28. Cooperative learning: A new application of problem-based learning in mental health training10.1080/01421590600834252 ↗
29. The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention10.1177/1469787413498035 ↗
30. The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution10.1177/1469787412467123 ↗
31. A qualitative student evaluation of group learning in higher education10.1080/03797720701840633 ↗
32. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778 ↗
33. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.006 ↗
34. Davis, F.D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology; system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Manag. Mach. Stud., 475–487.10.1006/imms.1993.1022 ↗
35. Sepasgozar, S.M.E., and Bernold, L.E. (October, January 30). A Technology pre-adoption model for construction. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of Australasian University Building Educators Association (AUBEA), Sydney, Australia.
36. McNamara, A.J., and Sepasgozar, S.M. (2020). Developing a theoretical framework for intelligent contract acceptance. Constr. Innov.10.1108/CI-07-2019-0061 ↗
37. Clustering university teaching staff through UTAUT: Implications for the acceptance of a new learning management system10.1111/bjet.12867 ↗
38. Extension of Technology Acceptance Model by using System Usability Scale to assess behavioral intention to use e-learning10.1007/s10639-019-09869-4 ↗
39. Nakarada-Kordic, I., Reay, S., Bennett, G., Kruse, J., Lydon, A.-M., and Sim, J. (2019). Can virtual reality simulation prepare patients for an MRI experience?. Radiography.10.1016/j.radi.2019.11.004 ↗
40. Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): Motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.016 ↗
41. Bergmann, J., and Sams, A. (2014). Flipped learning: Gateway to Student Engagement, International Society for Technology in Education.
42. Preparing students for Flipped or Team-Based Learning methods10.1108/ET-07-2014-0088 ↗
43. Lessons learned from an inside-out flip in entrepreneurship education10.1080/13215906.2014.11082080 ↗
44. Development of a peer assessment technique for obtaining individual marks on a group project10.1080/0260293900150304 ↗
45. Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches10.1080/02602930020022291 ↗
46. Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments10.1080/08832320309598613 ↗
47. Using process mining to analyze students’ quiz-taking behavior patterns in a learning management system10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.015 ↗
48. Interdisciplinary project-based learning: An online wiki experience in teacher education10.1080/1475939X.2014.899510 ↗
49. Elmahadi, I., and Osman, I. (2013, January 29–31). A study of the Sudanese students’ use of collaborative tools within moodle learning management system. Proceedings of the IST-Africa Conference and Exhibition (IST-Africa), Nairobi, Kenya.
50. Use of Moodle as a tool for collaborative learning: A study focused on wiki
51. Hybrid learning environment: Collaborative or competitive learning?10.1007/s10055-018-0358-z ↗
52. Using virtual reality in the classroom: Preservice teachers’ perceptions of its use as a teaching and learning tool10.1080/09523987.2019.1583461 ↗
53. Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.008 ↗
54. A literature review of features and trends of technology-supported collaborative learning in informal learning settings from 2007 to 201810.1007/s40692-019-00148-2 ↗
55. E-learning in web 3.010.5815/ijmecs.2014.02.02 ↗
56. Männistö, M., Mikkonen, K., Kuivila, H.M., Virtanen, M., Kyngäs, H., and Kääriäinen, M. (2019). Digital collaborative learning in nursing education: A systematic review. Scand. J. Caring Sci.10.1111/scs.12743 ↗
57. Halavais, A. (2016). Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Int. Encycl. Commun. Theory Philos., 1–5.10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect195 ↗
58. How does the pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced collaborative academic course promote digital literacies, self-regulation, and perceived learning of students?10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100722 ↗
59. Sepasgozar, S.M., Davis, S., Loosemore, M., and Bernold, L. (2018). An investigation of modern building equipment technology adoption in the Australian construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag.10.1108/ECAM-03-2017-0052 ↗
60. Modeling the Implementation Process for New Construction Technologies: Thematic Analysis Based on Australian and US Practices10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000608 ↗
61. Sepasgozar, S.M., and Davis, S. (2018). Construction Technology Adoption Cube: An Investigation on Process, Factors, Barriers, Drivers and Decision Makers Using NVivo and AHP Analysis. Buildings, 8.10.20944/preprints201805.0281.v1 ↗
62. Extended theory of planned behaviour for promoting construction waste recycling in Hong Kong10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.016 ↗
63. Horton, J., Macve, R., and Struyven, G. (2004). Qualitative research: Experiences in using semi-structured interviews. The Real Life Guide to Accounting Research, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-008043972-3/50022-0 ↗
64. Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction A critical review of existing research10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0083 ↗
65. Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press. [4th ed.].
66. Sepasgozar, S. (2020, July 01). Footing Construction Process [Immersive Environment for Teaching]. YouTube: Sydney. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZFGxmVAbFM.
67. Sepasgozar, S. (2020, July 01). Site Layout [Immersive Teaching] Sydney. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qJnLjjr2jY.
68. Shirowzhan, S., Tan, W., and Sepasgozar, S.M. (2020). Digital Twin and CyberGIS for Improving Connectivity and Measuring the Impact of Infrastructure Construction Planning in Smart Cities, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.10.3390/ijgi9040240 ↗
69. Spatial compactness metrics and Constrained Voxel Automata development for analyzing 3D densification and applying to point clouds: A synthetic review10.1016/j.autcon.2018.09.018 ↗
70. Shirowzhan, S., and Sepasgozar, S.M. (2019). Spatial analysis using temporal point clouds in advanced GIS: Methods for ground elevation extraction in slant areas and building classifications. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf., 8.10.3390/ijgi8030120 ↗
71. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view10.2307/30036540 ↗
72. Context-aware risk management for architectural heritage using historic building information modeling and virtual reality10.1016/j.culher.2018.12.010 ↗
73. Impact assessment of reinforced learning methods on construction workers’ fall risk behavior using virtual reality10.1016/j.autcon.2019.04.015 ↗
74. Virtual Immersive Learning Environments (VILEs) Based on Digital Storytelling to Enhance Deeper Learning for Undergraduate Students10.5539/hes.v9n1p144 ↗
75. Templeton, C., and Kessinger, M.W. (2020). Virtual Reality: Learning by Seeing in 3D. Handbook of Research on Software for Gifted and Talented School Activities in K-12 Classrooms, IGI Global.10.4018/978-1-7998-1400-9.ch005 ↗
76. Interactive virtual technologies in engineering education: Why not 360° videos?10.1007/s12008-019-00553-y ↗
77. Raghavan, R., and Rao, P. (2018). Accenture Extended Reality (XR): Immersive Learning for the Future Workforce, IEEE.
78. The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009 ↗
79. Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 ↗
80. Implementing citizen centric technology in developing smart cities: A model for predicting the acceptance of urban technologies10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.012 ↗
81. Sepasgozar, S., Shirowzhan, S., and Wang, C.C. (2017). A Scanner Technology Acceptance Model for Construction Projects. Procedia Eng., 1237–1246.10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.285 ↗
82. Generative Processes of Comprehension10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2 ↗
83. Using presence questionnaires in reality10.1162/105474600566989 ↗
84. Youngblut, C., and Huie, O. (2003, January 22–26). The relationship between presence and performance in virtual environments: Results of a VERTS study. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
85. Pallavicini, F., Cipresso, P., Raspelli, S., Grassi, A., Serino, S., Vigna, C., Triberti, S., Villamira, M., Gaggioli, A., and Riva, G. (2013). Is virtual reality always an effective stressors for exposure treatments? Some insights from a controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 13.10.1186/1471-244X-13-52 ↗
86. The factor structure of the presence questionnaire10.1162/105474605323384654 ↗
87. Sepasgozar, S.M., Wang, C., and Shirowzhan, S. (2016, January 18). Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation of Laser Scanners in Building Construction. Proceedings of the 33rd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2016), Auburn, Alabama, USA.10.22260/ISARC2016/0090 ↗
88. Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S., and Liu, C. (2018, January 16). Monitoring physical progress of indoor buildings using mobile and terrestrial point clouds. Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.10.1061/9780784481264.059 ↗
89. Enhanced autocorrelation-based algorithms for filtering airborne lidar data over urban areas10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000149 ↗
90. Building classification from lidar data for spatio-temporal assessment of 3D urban developments10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.308 ↗
91. Data mining for recognition of spatial distribution patterns of building heights using airborne lidar data10.1016/j.aei.2020.101033 ↗
92. Comparative analysis of machine learning and point-based algorithms for detecting 3D changes in buildings over time using bi-temporal lidar data10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102841 ↗
93. Deep learning-based extraction of construction procedural constraints from construction regulations10.1016/j.aei.2019.101003 ↗
94. Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Zaini, I., and Wang, C. (2017, January 1). An integrated GIS and Wi-Fi based locating system for improving construction labor communications. Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2017), Taipei, Taiwan.10.22260/ISARC2017/0145 ↗
95. Sepasgozar, S.M., Forsythe, P., Shirowzhan, S., and Norzahari, F. (2016, January 8). Scanners And photography: A combined framework. Proceedings of the 40th Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) 2016 Conference, Cairns, Australia.
96. Evaluation of terrestrial and mobile scanner technologies for part-built information modeling10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001574 ↗
97. Sepasgozar, S., Lim, S., Shirowzhan, S., Kim, Y., and Nadoushani, Z.M. (2015, January 15–18). Utilisation of a New Terrestrial Scanner for Reconstruction of As-built Models: A Comparative Study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Oulu, Finland.10.22260/ISARC2015/0027 ↗
98. Tahmasebinia, F., Niemelä, M., Ebrahimzadeh Sepasgozar, S., Lai, T., Su, W., Reddy, K., Shirowzhan, S., Sepasgozar, S., and Marroquin, F. (2018). Three-Dimensional Printing Using Recycled High-Density Polyethylene: Technological Challenges and Future Directions for Construction. Buildings, 8.10.20944/preprints201811.0335.v1 ↗
99. BIM compatibility and its differentiation with interoperability challenges as an innovation factor10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103086 ↗
100. Zhao, P.A., and Wang, C.C. (2014, January 27–28). A comparison of using traditional cost estimating software and BIM for construction cost control. Proceedings of the ICCREM 2014: Smart Construction and Management in the Context of New Technology, Kunming, China.10.1061/9780784413777.031 ↗