Teaching Prevention through Design (PtD) Principles Using a Non-Traditional Pedagogical Strategy By Zia Ud Din A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved July 2017 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Chair Allan D. Chasey David Grau Torrent ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY August 2017 ©2017 Zia Ud Din All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Many accidents occur during construction and maintenance of facilities. Both research and practice have indicated that decisions made during the design and planning phases before work at a construction site can influence workers’ safety (Behm, 2005). The Prevention through Design (PtD) concept is the consideration of construction site safety in the design of a project (Fred A Manuele, 2008). In one research study, more than 200 fatality investigation reports were reviewed, and the results showed that 42 percent of fatalities reviewed were linked to the absence of the PtD consideration in the design (Behm, 2005). This work indicates that the associated risk that contributed to the fatal injuries would have been reduced or eliminated if PtD had been utilized. Researchers have identified the reasons for not applying the PtD concept in the design. The predominant reason is that most architects and design engineers do not learn about construction safety and construction processes required to eliminate construction safety hazards through design. Therefore, prevention through design education of architects, design engineers, and construction managers is critical to enable them to implement PtD. However, in most curricula, there is no room for an entire course focused on PtD. Therefore, one researcher delivered 70 minutes long lecture-based intervention in a project management class of the civil engineering discipline, but it did not prove effective (Behm, Culvenor, & Dixon, 2014). There is an opportunity to teach PtD to students using alternative teaching strategies such as computer games. Computer games are routinely considered as the most important and influential medium by college students. In this research study, a serious game and a paper-based game (the paper version of the serious game) were developed and implemented. The aim of the study was i to measure the effectiveness of alternative teaching methods to train students for safe design thinking. The result shows that the computer game engaged the students in comprehensive hazard recognition challenges. The learning experience of the students was compared to two other interventions: paper-based game and lecture-based teaching. The in-class lecture and the computer game were effective in delivering the prevention through design topics. The serious game was more effective compared to the lecture, and the paper-based game failed to motivate the students to learn. This dissertation discusses the possible reasons for success and failures of these pedagogical approaches. ii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Qamar-Ud-Din (late) and mother, Hajira (late) for whom I am eternally thankful. They were my best friends, my inspiration, and my source of love, support, and encouragement. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of the many important people in my life. First and foremost, I am very grateful for the advice and support of my supervisor Dr. G. Edward Gibson Jr. He took a chance on me and mentored me through my Ph.D. journey. His kindness, support, guidance, and patience made it possible for me to complete this dissertation. Without his encouragement, I would never have dreamt of exploring the broader field of construction safety and serious games. I was pleased to have Dr. Allan Chasey ready to critique and improve the ideas I presented. I would also like to thank Dr. David Grau for his valuable guidance and raising very critical questions related to the statistical analysis of this study. These acknowledgments would not be complete without expressing my gratitude and indebtedness to Mr. Richard Standage and Ms. Cotton McNutt, instructors of CON 244 and CON 271 classes, who generously allowed me to collect data from their students. In the end, I am grateful to my brothers, Dr. Zain Ul Abdin and Rafi Ud Din for their constant support during my studies abroad, especially, when they took care of our sick parents. This research was made possible with funding from the Global Center for Safety Initiative at Arizona State University (ASU-GCS). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 3 1.2. Research Questions ....................................................................................... 6 1.3. Research Hypotheses .................................................................................... 7 1.4. Research scope .............................................................................................. 7 1.5. Dissertation outline ....................................................................................... 8 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 9 2.1. Prevention through Design ............................................................................ 9 2.2. PtD Considerations in Design and Pre-Construction Planning Process......... 11 2.2.1. Front End Planning Process ...................................................................... 11 2.2.2. Pre-construction Planning Process ............................................................ 12 2.3. Prevention through Design History ............................................................. 13 2.4. Prevention through Design National Initiative ............................................. 15 2.5. Impediments to Prevention through Design Implementation ........................ 17 2.6. Need for Prevention through Design Education ........................................... 17 v CHAPTER Page 2.7. Engineering and Construction Education at Large ....................................... 18 2.8. Civil Engineering Education at Arizona State University ............................ 19 2.9. Construction Management and Construction Engineering Education at Arizona State University .................................................................................... 20 2.10. Serious Games .......................................................................................... 21 2.11. Serious Game Development Framework ................................................... 22 2.11.1. Storytelling Layer................................................................................... 24 2.11.2. Gameplay Layer ..................................................................................... 24 2.11.3. User Experience Layer ........................................................................... 25 2.11.4. Technology Layer .................................................................................. 26 2.11.5. Influence between Layers ....................................................................... 27 2.12. Learning Styles ......................................................................................... 27 2.13. Educational Theories ................................................................................. 29 2.13.1. Behaviorism ........................................................................................... 29 2.13.2. Cognitivism ............................................................................................ 30 2.13.3. Constructivist Learning .......................................................................... 30 2.13.4. Practice, Experience, and Interaction ...................................................... 30 2.14. Summary................................................................................................... 31 vi CHAPTER Page 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 33 3.1. Establish Hypothesis /Objectives ................................................................. 34 3.2. Literature Review........................................................................................ 34 3.3. Research Methodology ................................................................................ 35 3.3.1. Dependent Variable .................................................................................. 36 3.3.2. Independent Variables: Pedagogies .......................................................... 36 3.3.2.1. Serious Game ........................................................................................ 36 3.3.2.2. Paper-based Game ................................................................................. 37 3.3.2.3. In-class Lecture ..................................................................................... 37 3.3.3. Confounding Variables............................................................................. 38 3.4. Design of Study .........................................................................................