Search results

What are children’s responses to storybook characters portrayed as socioeconomically disadvantaged? Do these responses vary by gender, race, socioeconomic status, and setting? Sixty-two 8-year-old-children individually listened and responded to a story about a soup kitchen using two different communication systems: drawings and words. Categories generated from the data were analyzed using chi-square analyses, yielding statistically significant findings for each of the variables of interest. Results offer a unique, detailed picture of the conceptual schemas of 8-year-old children about poverty.

This paper presents an interpretation of freehand drawings produced by supply chain management undergraduates in response to the question: “What is sustainability?” Having to explain sustainability pictorially forced students to distill what the essence of sustainability meant to them and provided insights into how they perceived sustainability and their roles in achieving sustainability in the context of supply chain management.

Students were asked to draw and answer the question “What is sustainability?” These drawings were discussed/interpreted in class. All drawings were initially examined quantitatively, before a sample of four were selected for presentation here.

Freehand drawing can be used as part of a critical pedagogy to create a visual representation to bypass cognitive verbal processing routes. This allows students to produce clear, more critical and inclusive images of their understanding of a topic regardless of their vocabulary.

The authors offer this as a model for educators seeking alternative methods for engaging with sustainability and for creating a learning environment where students can develop their capacity for critical self-reflection.

This study shows how a collaborative learning experience facilitates learners demonstrating their level of understanding of sustainability.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-11-2022-0718

Although data rich building information models have been widely adopted in the Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry in the United Kingdom (UK), use of 2D drawings on site for construction is still the norm. The ability of 2-dimensional (2D) drawings to convey complex 3-dimensional information is limited and requires interpretation from operatives, and 2D drawings can be quickly superseded by model updates. Although constructing directly from a model has been adopted in the aerospace and automotive industries, its use in construction is in its infancy. This research therefore aims to investigate the potential for, and barriers to, model-based construction in the UK.

This research uses a qualitative approach, thematically analysing 13 semi-structured interviews with UK-based construction professionals who have experience of paperless or model-based construction.

Although model -based construction has been implemented to a limited extent on some civil engineering projects; research and investment in software, network capacity, legal and contractual issues, and cultural and human factors will need to be considered before model-based construction can be implemented more widely.

The research contributes to an understudied, emergent area of construction practice and outlines hurdles that need to be understood and overcome before more widespread adoption of model-based construction can take place.

This study aims to compare similarities and differences in library and information science (LIS) and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions and perceptions of smart libraries via drawing analysis.

In this study, a total of 156 undergraduate students described their perceptions of smart libraries as drawings and textual descriptions. A modified coding scheme with 8 categories and 51 subcategories was used to analyse the undergraduate students’ drawings.

Most of the undergraduate students’ conceptions of smart libraries still involve self-checkout and learning/reading, focusing on information appliances, technical services, activities and objects. The differences are that the LIS undergraduates’ drawings showed smart libraries with robots, interactive book borrowing with technology tools, intelligent services, location-aware services or mobile applications, whereas non-LIS undergraduates presented smart libraries as readers (learners), other activities and no smart technology services. LIS undergraduates focused on providing patron services with technologies. Non-LIS undergraduates were more likely to draw a complex space with immediate access to books or digital resources, quiet reading and the freedom to engage in library activities.

The results provide a baseline for future research on the topic and provide preliminary evidence of using the methods to discern LIS and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions of smart libraries.