New Teaching Concept applying Technology Acceptance as Key Factor for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Planning and Simulation of Sustainable Buildings in Education, Further Education and Training

Research Paper Recommended citation: Pilot, A., Schulze, C., Kegel-Peper, K., Damek, S., Hahn, L., Sassenberg, K., & Brandenburger, Y. (2025). New Teaching Concept applying Technology Acceptance as Key Factor for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Planning and Simulation of Sustainable Buildings in Education, Further Education and Training. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631414. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. New Teaching Concept applying Technology Acceptance as Key Factor for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Planning and Simulation of Sustainable Buildings in Education, Further Education and Training. A. Pilot a, b, c 1, C. Schulze a, K. Kegel-Peper b, S. Damek a, L. Hahn d, e, K. Sassenberg e, d, Y. Brandenburger a a University of Applied Sciences Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany b Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany c Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland d Faculty I, Trier University, Trier, Germany e Leibniz Institute for Psychology, Trier, Germany Conference Key Areas: Open and online education for engineers, Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education Keywords: openBIM, teaching concept, sustainability, interdisciplinarity, VR ABSTRACT Building Information Modelling (BIM) has become a central part of modern planning and construction processes. Through interdisciplinary and collaborative working methods, architectural and engineering planning, construction, and operational processes are more efficient, sustainable, and transparent. The ‘practice-first’ approach focuses on practical workshops and project phases in which students from different disciplines work together to create BIM models and present collaborative designs using digital tools and virtual reality (VR). The teaching concept also combines active and passive learning to strengthen theoretical and practical skills. A survey before and after participation on the course will analyse the students' perception of the ease of use of BIM, its usefulness in planning and construction processes and their own self-efficacy in using the BIM method. The quantitative results show a significant increase in self-efficacy, perceived ease of use and usefulness of BIM, which emphasises the effectiveness of the teaching method. Stereotypical perceptions between disciplines remained stable in contrast to previous results. Although, the architecture students rated their skills higher than their engineering peers, which can be attributed to their different prior knowledge. Despite the high complexity of tasks and the challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration, the didactic concept encouraged students to see BIM as essential for future professional practice and promoted their skills in model-based collaboration, the use of digital tools and interdisciplinary teamwork. In future iterations, the integration of augmented reality (AR) and collaboration with other specialist disciplines such as civil engineering is planned. 1 Corresponding Author A. Pilot [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION As part of the digital transformation of construction, planning, and service processes for buildings, Building Information Modelling (BIM) plays a significant role. This relies on the creation of digital building models containing not just 3D geometries but also multiple information layers from various disciplines, forming the basis of the ‘BIMmethod’. Developing effective learning strategies for interdisciplinary and collaborative projects is a major challenge, especially in architecture and engineering education. Successful collaboration requires extensive practical expertise from all participants in construction and planning. Teaching must introduce new forms of interdisciplinary work and foster collaborative experience to optimally prepare students. Which leads to the research question on ‘How does a gamified practiceoriented, interdisciplinary BIM teaching approach impact students' perceived selfefficacy, ease of use, and usefulness of BIM tools, and what role do disciplinary backgrounds play in shaping these perceptions? The tasks in architectural and engineering projects have expanded from traditional design and functionality to include technological, environmental, and social aspects, particularly regarding climate change. BIM enhances team communication and coordination, while visual technologies like Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) support real-time design visualization. The adaptability of architecture and building services are fundamental to solving the complex, interrelated problems of the construction industry. Increasing complexity in interdisciplinary design and planning often represents a hurdle for BIM implementation. However, BIM itself facilitates a paradigm shift to manage tasks across diverse disciplines and in complex workflows. The potential for the utilization and effective application of BIM lies in creating low-threshold access and building confidence in communication and application to address future challenges sustainably. The aim of the presented work is to use the developed teaching concept to investigate various psychological questions in the field of BIM on the topics of technology acceptance, user experience, self-efficacy and perspective-taking in interdisciplinary working groups. The focus is on creating a low-threshold introduction to the BIM working method through the co-creative concept of the educational method. The integration of gamified work phases is intended to promote student motivation and simplify the learning of complex tasks. 2 STATE OF THE ART IN RESEARCH ON TEACHING BIM The implementation of BIM in higher education has been increasing, with a variety of approaches being adopted worldwide. Similarly, research into this topic has expanded over time. This progression is reflected in multiple systematic reviews: a 2016 review [1] synthesizing existing research on BIM curriculum design in architecture, engineering, and construction education; a 2021 review [2] examining current strategies for BIM implementation in academic settings; and a 2024 literature review [3] analyzing global openBIM research trends within the AEC industry. BIM, Bloom's Taxonomy and knowledge-based learning vs. competence-driven concepts: Teaching concepts described or mentioned in Studies on BIM in higher education rely on Bloom’s Taxonomy [4], a foundational educational framework used to categorize cognitive learning objectives and knowledge-based learning approaches, as illustrated by an empirical Brazilian study proposing a curricular BIM implementation plan [5]. This can also be found in the buildingSMART international certification program, starting with a 'Foundation Level' that emphasizes 'Remember' (knowledge) and 'Understand' (comprehension) as a basis for educational programs in higher education [6]. Frameworks such as the BAF (BIM Academic Forum) [8], IMAC (Illustration, Manipulation, Application, Collaboration) [9], and ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) [10] structure BIM education by prioritizing theoretical knowledge before practical skills. These models provide a systematic approach but have been criticized for overlooking practical, competency-based methods that better align with industry needs.Criticism of Bloom's Taxonomy is rarely addressed, even though experiential learning theorists like Kolb [12] advocate iterative, hands-on cycles over linear hierarchies. Only a few studies adopt a competency-based approach prioritizing skills before theory, showing that practical skills “highly motivate students” [13], function as “active learning methods” [14], and can be integrated to meet industry needs [15]. Some emphasize that “learning BIM must be rooted in actual experience” [16], and a 2024 doctoral-level case study [17] demonstrates that realistic, campus-based projects significantly enhance BIM comprehension. Competence-driven concepts are mentioned implicitly, for instance, regarding “the minimum knowledge necessary” [18] and the “T-shaped model design,” which fosters both broad foundational knowledge and specialized expertise [19]. Some studies recommend balancing theory and practice based on student age, providing more hands-on learning for younger students [20]. A competency-based perspective is also seen in the rise of game-based learning [21], using simulations, role-play, and collaboration. Involving professionals further enriches this educational environment, while research on collaborative engineering shows that applied skills and problem-solving are essential [22]. Current BIM education frameworks still emphasize theory before skill development, largely guided by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Although models like BAF, IMAC, ADDIE, and NARS stress a solid theoretical base, critics argue this hierarchy may reduce motivation and realworld problem-solving abilities. Increasingly, evidence suggests that more practiceoriented, competency-based methods could better align with industry demands, enhancing student engagement and retention. These developments indicate a shift in BIM education: away from purely theoretical instruction towards more practiceoriented, competency-based approaches that enhance long-term learning outcomes. Given BIM’s growing importance in professional practice, it becomes evident that not only theoretical knowledge but also the ease of use and overall acceptance of the technology must take center stage. Technology acceptance & BIM: Students consistently rate BIM as highly beneficial for productivity, collaboration, and project performance, thanks to features like accurate 3D modelling, improved coordination, error reduction, and design visualization. Ease of use - shaped by intuitive interfaces, prior experience, and supporthas as slightly stronger influence on attitudes than perceived usefulness. A 2024 Malaysian study [23] confirms that bothease of use and usefulness positively affect BIM adoption.An integrative, “practice-first” approach - where hands-on experiences inform theory - underpins effective Project-Based Learning (PBL). In PBL, collaborative tasks boost motivation, skill acquisition, and real-world relevance. Gamification and attention to practical benefits address the co-creativity challenges of BIM workflows [24][25]. Overall, technology acceptance model (TAM) research shows that combining theory with practice enhances comprehension, aligns curricula with professional needs, and readies students for complex, sustainabilitycentered projects. A “practice-first” approach shifts away from theory-led learning by using hands-on, real-world scenarios as the basis for conceptual understanding and critical thinking. Through reflection, students link activities to theory, aligning with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle rather than a strictly hierarchical model like Bloom’s Taxonomy. Most curricula assume students already know construction industry processes—a flawed premise, since many lack practical exposure. Evidence suggests that starting with practice better prepares learners for interdisciplinary collaboration and cocreativity in BIM contexts. By leveraging the TAM to embed real-world tasks, practice-first models close gaps in traditional didactics and equip students to manage complex, sustainability-focused engineering projects. Research Gap: This study seeks to address unexplored dimensions in the effectiveness of the "practice first" approach for teaching BIM, specifically through the lens of the TAM. While prior research has primarily focused on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (TAM I), the current investigation expands the scope by exploring factors such as self-efficacy (TAM III), job relevance (TAM II), and the importance of collaboration in interdisciplinary settings. This research examines whether gamification influences skill acquisition differently across disciplines, a dimension absents in existing studies. 3 METHODOLOGY The teaching concept focuses on model-based communication, providing students with a simulated real-world learning experience to foster essential BIM competencies through active application of acquired BIM skills [26]. Students gain both theoretical and practical BIM expertise. Through interdisciplinary cooperative and competencebased learning, they develop key skills such as model-based collaboration, communication, and the safe handling of BIM models. The class is divided into different learning phases inspired by Project-Based Learning principles and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle. Incorporating Kolb’s cycle is believed to have positive effects on the outcome of the TAM [27] applied in this course. The program starts with an on-site kick-off workshop, followed by weekly virtual sessions that include design processing, life cycle assessment, and energy evaluation. Dividing the course into phases equips students with hands-on skills during the workshop phase and enables them to apply, strengthen, and reflect on these skills during the project phase. The project phase is supported by targeted theoretical and practical instructional inputs. This allows a stimulating alternation between autonomous and guided learning experiences. Throughout the semester, students attain skills within six competence fields of the BIM methodology including model use, model creation, model export, model coordination, definition of strategies and definition of requirements. Activities are conducted in team-based learning settings, emphasizing collaboration to address real-world problems and develop professional teamwork skills. Fig. 1. Project phases Model-based communication is central across all phases, with students iteratively progressing through modelling, coordination, and presentation/reflection/ documentation, as shown in Figure 1. The course begins with a workshop phase, including two consecutive workshops, during which interdisciplinary teams first collaborate on a 3D riddle designed to teach basic BIM collaboration strategies in a gamified manner. Prior to the teamwork phase, students are introduced to essential techniques for model creation, model export, model coordination, and the use of the Common Data Environment (CDE) by a demonstrated example. The 3D models resulting from the riddle are viewed in a VR-environment. The second day focuses on designing a small-scale project . In a three-hour working session, the teams develop ideas for an integral design, incorporating the façade, the interior, the landscape, and the technical building systems. The drafts are then shared in a CDE and presented to the class. At the end of the second workshop, each team’s results are critically reviewed by instructors across disciplines, encouraging constructive feedback and interdisciplinary learning. The workshops serve further purposes, such as building team cohesion, enhancing motivation, and introducing the foundational concepts necessary for the subsequent phase. During the project phase, students engage in three overlapping stages: the modelling phase, the coordination phase, and the presentation, reflection, and documentation phase, each with specific objectives and activities. The starting point of the modelling phase is the 3D model of the small-scale project created during the workshops. This phase is supported by targeted interactive lectures on BIM use, requirements, and creation of BIM models, as well as the processes introduced during the workshop. Students freely choose their modelling software, enabling flexibility and creativity in their work. The chosen software packages varied from Archicad, Allplan, Revit, Vectorworks to liNEAR.. As part of the project phase, students use the BIM method to conduct life cycle assessments (LCAs), leveraging its ability to integrate and analyze extensive data throughout a building's lifecycle. They apply core BIM uses - model creation, model use, model export, and model coordination - to manage all relevant data for sustainability analyses. This learning activity requires students to enrich their models with detailed information about building materials and technical service components. They then calculate energy requirements and CO₂ emissions based on the inputs, using the models to determine the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of their proposed designs. Finally, students compare the sustainability performance of all houses by calculating GWP per inhabitant per year. Fig. 2. Cooperative workflow In the coordination phase, the CDE becomes the central hub for communication and data exchange. Teams upload model revisions to the overarching project space within the CDE (Fig. 2), facilitating discussion and collaboration. Communication is enhanced throughusing openBIM standards such as IFC file formats for models and BCF for issue management, enabling effective coordination with model-checker software and adherence to defined model requirements. Intermediate design discussions are presented and reviewed in joint planning meetings held in a virtual space.The final phase focuses on presenting, reflecting upon, and documenting the outcomes. Students select a workflow they developed collaboratively, reflect on it and describe it using a BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation) scheme. The described learning structure bridges theoretical understanding and practical application in a hands-on manner and provides students with an approachable introduction to the openBIM method. The primary elements of the TAM have been employed with the objective of reducing the barriers to entry to a minimum [28]. The course deliverables align with the teaching concept, ensuring comprehensive learning outcomes and practical application of the BIM method. Students submit individual and group products reflecting their progress through all phases. These include a consolidated BIM model of four discipline models, a BPMN scheme documenting a workflow, a life cycle assessment, and a BCF file addressing identified model-issues. Students also document individual experiences and lessons learned in a BIM journal. Deliverables further include a virtual 3D building tour and a presentation summarizing outcomes and methodologies. Evaluation methods: The procedure and questionnaire followed Damek et al. (2022) [29]. Students completed the same online questionnaire after the first and last seminar sessions. The questionnaire measured the relationship between architects and engineers, attitudes towards BIM, self-efficacy in BIM use, and stereotypes about their own and the other group. Only complete responses were analyzed, resulting in a final sample of 38 participants (26 architects, 12 engineers, including those from Damek et al., 2022 [29]) out of 70 course participants. No demographic data was collected, and the list linking codes to email addresses was deleted postdata collection to ensure anonymity. Given the small sample size, inferential statistics should be interpreted cautiously. Measures: The usefulness of the BIM-method was captured with three items (e.g., “I find the use of the BIM useful at work”) that indicated the general attitude toward the BIM-method. The ease to use BIM-method (e.g., “It does not require a great deal of mental effort to use the BIM-method”) and the intention to use the BIM-method (e.g., “If I could use the BIM-method in a future job, I would”) were captured with two items each. Self-efficacy regarding the use of the BIM-method was measured with four items (e.g., “I am confident that I am good at using the BIM-method.”). Furthermore, three items measured stereotypes about architects (e.g., highly creative) and four items measured stereotypes about Building-Services-Engineering engineers (e.g., enthusiastic about technology). All participants had to indicate to which extent the traits applied to both groups. Hence, the seven stereotypical traits were rated for architects as well as engineers. All items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1, “does not apply at all,” to 7, “does completely apply.” The internal consistency of all scales was at least acceptable (all Cronbach’s .60 <α<.95). Data analysis strategy: SPSS (version 29) was used to analyze the data. Withinsubject t-tests were computed to analyze change over time for ease, usefulness, self-efficacy, and intention. Because attending the seminar should increase ease, usefulness, self-efficacy and intention, we opted for one-tailed testing. General linear models with time (before vs. after class) as within-subject factor and major (architecture vs. engineering) as between-subject factor were computed for ease, usefulness, self-efficacy and intention to evaluate if there were differences in learning achievement between the two majors. Here, the interaction effects are most relevant. To evaluate if the same effect of stronger stereotypes after the seminar occurred with the increased sample size, we computed the same mixed general linear model as Damek et al. with the within-subject factors target (architects vs. engineers), time (before vs. after the class), and stereo-typicality (yes vs. no) as well as the between-subject factor major (architecture vs. engineering). Bonferroni adjusted comparisons were used to resolve significant interactions. The complete questionnaire, data and analysis script are available from the authors on request. 4 RESULTS Quantitative analysis: Students’ self-efficacy regarding the use of the BIM-method improved over time, t(37) = -3.83, p <.001. That is, the self-efficacy at the end of the class was larger (M= 4.82, SD = 1.23) than at the beginning of class (M = 3.88, SD = 1.50). In addition, the increase of perceived usefulness of the BIM-method over time was also significant, t(37) = -1.90, p = .033. The perceived usefulness of the BIMmethod was larger after class (M = 5.41, SD = 1.05) than before class (M = 5.02, SD = 1.10). Furthermore, the perceived ease of BIM-method also increased over time, t(37) = -2.04, p = .02. Thus, after the last class, participants perceived a higher ease (M = 4.42, SD = 1.55) than after the first class (M = 3.09, SD = 1.10). Taken together, those findings indicate that the seminar contributed to students’ perception that the BIM-method is useful. The increase in self-efficacy and ease of BIM-method also indicate that the seminar provides them with (the feeling to have) the skills required to work with the BIM-method. Interestingly, the intention to use the BIM-method did not increase over time, p = .402. However, the intention to use BIM was already rather high after the first seminar session (M = 5.46, SD = 1.16). This might indicate that the first hands-on interactive workshop already succeeded in highlighting the benefits of using BIM-method in the future. Additional analysis indicated that all effects reported up to this point were independent of the major. The analysis of the group stereotypes revealed a main effect of target, F(1,30)=4.19, p = .050, part-η²= .12, and stereo-typicality, F(1, 30) = 81.9, p <.001, part-η²= .73. The effects indicate that stereotypical traits received higher ratings than non-stereotypical traits and that the groups were judged differently. In addition, the target x major interaction was significant, F(1, 30) = 4.19, p < .001, part-η²= .44. Architect majors evaluate architects higher (M = 5.27, SE = 0.15) than engineering majors (M = 4.74, SE = 0.19, p = .03), whereas architect and engineering majors (M = 4.63, SE = 0.13) evaluate engineers similar (M = 4.99, SE = 0.17, p > .05; see Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Ascribed traits by target and own major (left) Fig. 4. Ascribed traits by target major and stereo-typicality (right) Furthermore, the target x stereo-typicality interaction was significant, F(1, 30) = 25.19, p < .001, part-η²= .46, indicating that stereotypical traits are prescribed more to targets than non-stereotypical traits. In addition, architects are also significantly higher prescribed with non-stereotypical traits than engineers see Fig. 4). All other effects were not significant (ps > .05). Hence, there was no change in the strength of the stereotype over time - differing from the findings reported by Damek et al., 2022 [29] based on a subsample of the data reported here. Qualitative analysis: The results consistently indicate that all groups were able to submit their models as fully integrated coordination models. However, deficits emerged in the quality of the models within individual disciplines. Across all seminars and throughout the three-year period, the overall model quality in regard to internal model structures and level of information, remained constantly low and relatively uniform. In contrast, the coordination quality among different disciplinary models was generally strong, underscoring successful interdisciplinary alignment. Moreover, as students documented their individual experiences in personal journals, it became verifiably clear that the primary learning objective - acquiring the ability to engage in interdisciplinary, model-based collaboration - was achieved. Nevertheless, the quality of communication within groups varied widely, a pattern that remained consistent both within each seminar and over successive years. 5 CONCLUSION The study is based on initial and final surveys focusing on how students evaluate their skills and their role within the BIM method according to their disciplines. The assumption from the initial survey [29] that stereotypes between disciplines would be reinforced was not confirmed. Instead, these perceptions remained relatively stable. It was observed that architecture students tended to rate their abilities higher than those studying Building Services Engineering. This may be attributed to the practical experience of master’s students, which was assessed at the beginning of the semester and factored into the group compositions. During the design development phase of the project, a holistic consideration of the building with respect to sustainability emerged as a key use case, highlighting the potential of the BIM methodology. The opportunity to present their results collaboratively within VR provided students with a novel means of showcasing and communicating their design goals. The data suggests that students recognized both the value and the necessity of BIM for their future professional practice. It should be noted that this educational format required them to acquire numerous skills simultaneously, including technology use, collaborative learning, and interdisciplinary teamwork. These competencies align with the evolving demands of the construction industry. The teaching concept offers the potential to incorporate additional use cases for the openBIM methodology, such as building documentation, integration with AR technologies, or collaboration with other disciplines In its current form, the teaching concept required additional effort from both students and educators, as well as a shift in traditional presentation and visualization practices. This approach enabled students to fully leverage the technologies while critically reflecting on their use. The students perceived this approach as highly beneficial. No significant differences were observed between disciplines regarding their assessment. It became clear that students were keen to integrate these technologies into their workflows and further develop their use.