Implementing an Iterative Approach to Crafting a Sustainable Construction Course Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability has deeply transformed 21st-century work and life, emphasizing its critical role in intellectual pursuits and everyday practices. Education is key to bridging the growing disconnect between humans and nature. While sustainable construction is a prevalent topic in construction management curricula, there is still a need for continuous improvement and practical changes to further integrate sustainability into educational programs. As the construction industry shifts toward sustainability, it requires new skills beyond traditional competencies. In response, this paper introduces a systematic, iterative curriculum development model tailored to the Sustainable Construction course within the Construction Project Management (CPM) program at The Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT). Utilizing technology and artificial intelligence (AI), the research adopts a three-step iterative development model that prioritizes student engagement, knowledge retention, and skill acquisition. To validate the model's effectiveness, the paper presents empirical evidence derived from student feedback, industry stakeholder insights, and classroom observations. This study documents and evaluates the curriculum-design process, offering best practices for integrating sustainability into construction education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".