{"title":"设计整合在AEC教育中的预防:学科障碍与动机因素的实证评估","authors":"Farouq Sammour , Zhenyu Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ergon.2025.103820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Prevention through Design (PtD) mitigates risks by integrating safety into early design stages, thereby enhancing building lifecycle safety. Despite its recognized importance, PtD remains insufficiently integrated into Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) education. This study examines discipline-specific barriers and motivators influencing student engagement with PtD, which had not been documented previously. A survey of 178 AEC students revealed low overall familiarity with PtD (11–15 %) and significant differences among disciplines in learning readiness and preferences. Architecture students exhibited the lowest worker safety awareness (56.7 %) and considered it less central to their design roles. Engineering students demonstrated moderate recognition of their worker safety responsibilities (77 %), while construction students, despite acknowledging the highest responsibility (92 %), expressed the least enthusiasm for formal PtD education. PtD's life-saving potential emerged as the primary motivator across all AEC disciplines. Secondary motivators varied by discipline. Construction students preferred learning PtD through tangible outcomes such as cost savings and schedule efficiencies, while architecture and engineering students were motivated by technology integration and career enhancement. Students showed an aversion to traditional reading and writing approaches, indicating a misalignment between conventional instruction and student preferences. Learning preferences differed by discipline. Architecture students favored visual learning strategies, while engineering and construction students preferred kinesthetic methods. These insights highlight the need for technology-enabled, case-based learning strategies that leverage disciplinary motivators and align with preferred learning modalities. Adopting these approaches is critical for equipping future AEC professionals with essential PtD competencies and advancing safer design.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50317,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 103820"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevention through design integration in AEC education: Empirical assessment of discipline-specific barriers and motivational factors\",\"authors\":\"Farouq Sammour , Zhenyu Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ergon.2025.103820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Prevention through Design (PtD) mitigates risks by integrating safety into early design stages, thereby enhancing building lifecycle safety. Despite its recognized importance, PtD remains insufficiently integrated into Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) education. This study examines discipline-specific barriers and motivators influencing student engagement with PtD, which had not been documented previously. A survey of 178 AEC students revealed low overall familiarity with PtD (11–15 %) and significant differences among disciplines in learning readiness and preferences. Architecture students exhibited the lowest worker safety awareness (56.7 %) and considered it less central to their design roles. Engineering students demonstrated moderate recognition of their worker safety responsibilities (77 %), while construction students, despite acknowledging the highest responsibility (92 %), expressed the least enthusiasm for formal PtD education. PtD's life-saving potential emerged as the primary motivator across all AEC disciplines. Secondary motivators varied by discipline. Construction students preferred learning PtD through tangible outcomes such as cost savings and schedule efficiencies, while architecture and engineering students were motivated by technology integration and career enhancement. Students showed an aversion to traditional reading and writing approaches, indicating a misalignment between conventional instruction and student preferences. Learning preferences differed by discipline. Architecture students favored visual learning strategies, while engineering and construction students preferred kinesthetic methods. These insights highlight the need for technology-enabled, case-based learning strategies that leverage disciplinary motivators and align with preferred learning modalities. Adopting these approaches is critical for equipping future AEC professionals with essential PtD competencies and advancing safer design.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103820\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016981412500126X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016981412500126X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevention through design integration in AEC education: Empirical assessment of discipline-specific barriers and motivational factors
Prevention through Design (PtD) mitigates risks by integrating safety into early design stages, thereby enhancing building lifecycle safety. Despite its recognized importance, PtD remains insufficiently integrated into Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) education. This study examines discipline-specific barriers and motivators influencing student engagement with PtD, which had not been documented previously. A survey of 178 AEC students revealed low overall familiarity with PtD (11–15 %) and significant differences among disciplines in learning readiness and preferences. Architecture students exhibited the lowest worker safety awareness (56.7 %) and considered it less central to their design roles. Engineering students demonstrated moderate recognition of their worker safety responsibilities (77 %), while construction students, despite acknowledging the highest responsibility (92 %), expressed the least enthusiasm for formal PtD education. PtD's life-saving potential emerged as the primary motivator across all AEC disciplines. Secondary motivators varied by discipline. Construction students preferred learning PtD through tangible outcomes such as cost savings and schedule efficiencies, while architecture and engineering students were motivated by technology integration and career enhancement. Students showed an aversion to traditional reading and writing approaches, indicating a misalignment between conventional instruction and student preferences. Learning preferences differed by discipline. Architecture students favored visual learning strategies, while engineering and construction students preferred kinesthetic methods. These insights highlight the need for technology-enabled, case-based learning strategies that leverage disciplinary motivators and align with preferred learning modalities. Adopting these approaches is critical for equipping future AEC professionals with essential PtD competencies and advancing safer design.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original contributions that add to our understanding of the role of humans in today systems and the interactions thereof with various system components. The journal typically covers the following areas: industrial and occupational ergonomics, design of systems, tools and equipment, human performance measurement and modeling, human productivity, humans in technologically complex systems, and safety. The focus of the articles includes basic theoretical advances, applications, case studies, new methodologies and procedures; and empirical studies.