MASS TIMBER CURRICULUM IN THE U.S. IN ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, AND CONSTRUCTION DISCIPLINES: CURRENT STATE OF ADOPTION, GAPS, AND NEEDS ANALYSIS By Avery Jean Seling A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Civil Engineering – Master of Science 2025 ABSTRACT Mass timber is a sustainable construction material that is increasing in demand throughout the engineering, architecture, and construction (AEC) fields in the United States. While it is gaining popularity, there are several barriers that still exist in the adoption of mass timber in the AEC industry. One of these barriers is the lack of mass timber curricula and educational resources in accredited programs across undergraduate and graduate institutions in the U.S. By analyzing information gathered from syllabi and interviews of instructors teaching classes with timber and mass timber components in accredited programs, this study aims to establish the current state of integration of timber and mass timber related content in engineering, architecture, and construction curricula and how they compare to one another. Results suggest that there is currently a relatively low number of timber and mass timber courses available in accredited higher educational institutions across the AEC fields, with architecture having the largest number and construction having the smallest. Engineering offers the largest number of mass timber-specific courses, while construction has the least. Within AEC classes, the curriculum content also predominantly focuses on the structural and design applications of mass timber. This highlights the opportunity for more comprehensive coverage of technology, construction, and materials concepts across all three disciplines. A lack of available instructional tools was also prominently discussed, with many instructors citing a lack of formal instructional materials, real-world examples, and case studies. It was also found that instructors with industry experience had an easier time creating and/or identifying these materials, suggesting that courses with industry experience-led instructors tend to currently provide a greater amount of mass timber educational content in comparison to courses without. Lastly, the instructor-suggested resources and solutions identified that could most help further support the increased adoption of mass timber curriculum included case studies and design projects, and instructional materials that include problem sets and lecture notes. Copyright by AVERY JEAN SELING 2025 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the professors for their participation in this study and willingness to improve mass timber education. I’d like to thank MassTimber@MSU for their collaboration and Cade Person, Olivia Pauls, and Christiana Kiesling for their valuable contributions to the project. I’d also like to thank Dr. Cetin and Dr. Berghorn for their guidance and support throughout this process. Finally, thank you to my family and friends for pushing me to work hard and accomplish my goals. This research is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under award number 2203123. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and views of the author expressed in this thesis do not necessarily represent those of the NSF. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 5 RESULTS & DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 9 Frequency of Timber/Mass Timber Course Offerings ................................................................ 9 Proportion of Mass Timber Coverage in Courses ......................................................................11 Mass Timber Topics Covered in Courses ................................................................................. 13 Resources Used and Desired for Mass Timber Instruction ....................................................... 15 Impact of Industry Timber and Mass Timber Instructor Experience ........................................ 19 Potential and Challenges of Integrating Mass Timber .............................................................. 21 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 22 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 27 v INTRODUCTION Driven by population growth, technological advancements, economic factors, sustainability needs, and social expectations, vertical infrastructure across the world is constantly evolving. Historically most buildings in the U.S. have been built with steel or concrete structural components (Slaton, 2001). However, mass timber has emerged in recent years as an alternative product that can be used as a sustainable option for structural components of a building. The use of wood has been found to contribute to reducing carbon emissions through both storing carbon and reducing emissions during the construction phase in comparison to steel or concrete (Dennehy, 2020; USDA Forest Service, 2023). The use of mass timber materials in construction has also become more widely used and accepted in the AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Services) community in the United States in recent years. The transition from traditional light-frame timber design to also include modern engineered mass timber enables this material to compete with conventional construction methods that primarily rely on steel and concrete (Kuzmanovska et al., 2018). Furthermore, the versatility of mass timber allows it to be manufactured in different ways, featuring large solid timber sections that are typically cross-laminated (CLT), dowel-laminated (DLT), glulam (GLT), nail-laminated (NLT), mass plywood panels (MPP), or structural composite lumber (SCL) (Woodworks, 2023). An increase in awareness and a growing number of projects have allowed mass timber to grow in the U.S. building construction market (Ahmed & Arocho, 2021). According to a report on the mass timber construction market, mass timber construction is predicted to grow at a compound annual growth rate of six percent from 2022 to 2031 (Allied Market Research, 2023). From 2020-2023 alone, the number of mass timber buildings grew 114%, with over 2000 construction projects occurring during this period (Ross, 2024). There are various reasons suggested as to why mass timber has seen such a growth in the U.S. Studies have shown that mass timber used in construction can reduce project costs and in turn benefits the clients, contractors, and developers (HKS, 2022). The seismic performance of mass timber buildings is another factor, specifically studies have found that mass timber structural components are resilient under seismic conditions, acting as rigid bodies with ductile properties provided by the connections (Izzi et al., 2018). Mass timber also has been found to perform well structurally when exposed to fire, producing a protective layer of char that slows the burning process in members (Muszyński et al., 1 2019). In addition, these properties have improved as the design of fire and seismic resisting connections for mass timber materials has also been developed (Muszyński et al., 2019). As more projects adopt mass timber as a construction material, the barriers continue to decrease, making it increasingly accessible and utilized in the building industry. Because mass timber is relatively new to the U.S. construction industry in comparison to the well-established concrete and steel industries, less industry professionals are familiar with the use of this material in the construction, architecture, and engineering professions (Woodworks, 2023; Riddle, 2023). Similarly, there are also less instructors that have the background knowledge to teach courses that cover the design and use of mass timber to the future industry professionals currently completing their education. This suggests the need for better mass timber education in educational institutions across the three AEC disciplines to better prepare the future workforce for interfacing with this structural material. Previous studies have suggested that the availability of a well-structured curriculum that can be incorporated into higher educational institutions across the United States can help to reduce barriers to instruction and thus increase adoption of curriculum content (VanWyngaarden, 2024). For example, a study on the adoption of high-impact education (learning practices to promote deep learning and student engagement) in undergraduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) courses revealed better outcomes among students and faculty with organized curriculum (VanWyngaarden, 2024). Instructors in the AEC fields interested in teaching mass timber focused courses would thus also strongly benefit from educational resources on mass timber design and construction. Components of educational curriculum include clear learning objectives and outcomes, interdisciplinary integration, industry relevance, feedback mechanisms, assessments, and flexibility (UNESCO, 2023). Curriculum intended to cover a particular topic should cover a broad range of topics that relate to the core focus and provide students with a well-rounded education (UNESCO, 2023). The AEC industry relies on this type of curricula to deliver the knowledge and skills of a professional acting in the field (Sheine, 2019). Preparing students for the workforce is critical in the AEC industry and will continue to shape the future generation’s performance. A combination of design, construction, technical, structural, and materials courses are important to include for students to receive a holistic educational experience (Alakavuk, 2016). Integrating mass timber education into existing coursework has been a challenge due to barriers including limited funding to support new course development, and restrictions on course 2 and program requirements limiting the flexibility to support additional electives (Lehmann, 2023; Beck, 2022). Steel and concrete are much more prevalent in curricula across the AEC industry; there is less of a focus on timber and masonry structures (Dong, 2015). Recent research revealed that because of this knowledge gap in the AEC industry, this has led to various challenges in mass timber adoption, such as misrepresentation of mass timber cost estimates (Woodworks, 2023). Without sufficient education, students are not adequately prepared to perform the responsibilities of a professional in the mass timber industry, even at an introductory level. Furthermore, the American Wood Council noted that mass timber design projects, problem sets, and real-world examples available for use in mass timber construction are deficient in today’s higher educational curriculum. Since mass timber is comparatively new, it also creates challenges for instructors in finding suitable industry-focused resources (American Wood Council, 2023). This highlights the importance of creating widely available mass timber educational resources that are easily accessible to students and educators. A recent study found a significant lack of engineering courses that teach the fundamentals of mass timber. Specifically, a survey on undergraduate and graduate engineering curriculum revealed that only 55% of engineering institutions offered courses on timber design, only some of which regularly teach this class listed in the curriculum, and very few of which integrate mass timber components into timber design (Okoye, 2019; Person, 2024). Additionally, most of these programs did not require their students to take a timber course to graduate (Okoye, 2019). No known studies have been completed to assess the current state of mass timber curriculum in the architecture and construction areas. In summary there is a lack of research on the level of integration of mass timber curriculum throughout engineering, architecture, and construction higher educational programs throughout the U.S. There is also little research done evaluating the similarities and differences in the current state of mass timber education across these disciplines, as well as how effectively these fields are interconnected in their approach to teaching mass timber. Furthermore, there is an absence of research on instructor-identified gaps, that, if filled, would provide the most effective resources for improving mass timber curriculum development and ease of adoption. Examining the existing curriculum and what is missing in accredited higher educational institutions throughout the United States across all three disciplines is crucial to gain a better understanding and improving the state of mass timber education. An understanding of mass timber across all three disciplines is needed 3 in industry to support mass timber adoption. This study seeks to characterize the current level of mass timber integration in engineering, architecture, and construction programs, as well as identify the gaps in current curricula and the instructor-suggested resources that are needed for the expansion and improvement of mass timber education. It also seeks to draw comparisons across the three disciplines to help determine what kinds of resources would be universally helpful across AEC, and other specific topics that would be field specific. Insights on these objectives are obtained through syllabus analysis and structured interviews conducted with instructors teaching courses across AEC that include some (often small amount) content on mass timber in their coursework. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. First the methods section reviews how timber-related AEC coursework was searched for and identified across the AEC disciplines in U.S. institutions. The results and discussion section discusses findings from these interviews and analysis, including prevalence of mass-timber curriculum, components of mass timber instruction currently discussed in curriculum, instructor- identified needs for curriculum resources, and preferred structure of these resources. It also discusses differences across the AEC areas in terms of findings. The conclusions section summarizes results, studies limitations, and suggests future work. 4 METHODS A search for mass timber courses offered by 4-year higher educational institutions across the United States was performed to determine how many of these courses existed. A list of colleges and universities with accredited undergraduate and graduate programs in engineering (civil engineering specifically), architecture, and construction was compiled first to facilitate this process. To maintain accreditation, these programs follow the standards of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the National Architecture Accrediting Board (NAAB), and the American Council for Construction Education (ACCE), respectively. In total 702, 135 and 92 institutions in the United States were found to have accredited programs in civil engineering, architecture, and construction, respectively, under these accreditation boards. This list of institutions was used to facilitate the mass timber related curriculum search process. Due to the large number of accredited civil engineering programs, the course search was further simplified for this set of programs by focusing on the two largest civil engineering accredited public institutions in each state (i.e. 100 civil engineering institutions total). This is closer in number to the 135 and 92 institutions with architecture and construction programs. The course search process began by reviewing the specified institutions’ websites to determine whether they offered accredited programs in engineering, architecture, and/or construction. The course catalogs were then thoroughly examined for institutions with accredited programs and any courses in these programs with titles related to timber or mass timber were noted. Course descriptions were then reviewed for these courses to identify keywords related to mass timber, including timber, mass timber, wood, lumber, hardwood, sustainable building, CLT, and GLT. Courses that included any of these words were catalogued, along with a brief description of the course and how it is related to timber. Additionally, the type of degree program under which these were offering the course was documented (i.e. associates, bachelor’s, master‘s, doctoral), along with the instructors listed as teaching the course(s), and their contact information, if available. Once the relevant courses were identified and analyzed, instructors were contacted via email to request the course syllabi. The main goal of this step was to use the syllabi to understand how much mass timber related content was listed in the syllabus as being integrated into the course curriculum. Key information was then documented, including course title, institution, course description, objectives, textbooks and required materials (e.g. codes, etc..), and presence of mass 5 timber-specific topics and/or assignments. The estimated percentage of the course content devoted to mass timber was also determined from the syllabi where possible. Instructors of these classes were then contacted via email and requested to participate in an interview via video conference call. In total 154 instructors were contacted via email between June 2023 and February 2024. After two rounds of follow-up emails and no response from the targeted instructors, no further contact was made. Video conference calls followed a structured interview, where the instructors were asked a series of specific pre-determined questions. Some of the questions included the type of course taught, the instructor’s experience/background, the mass timber concepts taught, and reference materials used/desired (see Appendix Table A7 for the questions). These questions were designed to assess what is currently being taught in the identified courses, and to obtain their opinion on what additional resources are needed to further improve the inclusion of mass timber related curriculum across the AEC courses currently offered. Interviews were audio recorded then transcribed for analysis of responses. Analysis of responses included a mixed methods approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Responses provide insights and supplemental information to the syllabi on course focus, percentage of mass timber covered, the instructors’ background in mass timber, the specific concepts covered, and reference materials employed in the courses. Another part of the analysis involved identifying the gaps in mass timber resources. The interviewed instructors provided feedback on the adequacy of publicly available teaching materials and references, and what topic they would like to cover but do not have time or resources to cover currently. They also provided insight into what materials they felt would be the most helpful for content development. The types of mass timber resources used and desired by participants were then analyzed and separated into categories such as design standards, academic materials, and industry resources. This information was key to identifying the barriers in the adoption of mass timber into engineering, architecture, and construction curriculum. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show detailed information on the instructor participants across engineering, architecture, and construction, respectively. These tables include professional and academic titles, types of experience, and high-level information about the institutions in which they worked. The names of both the participants and their institutions are not included to maintain anonymity. The participants originate from institutions across multiple regions in the U.S., ranging in level of experience in both mass timber and academia (both teaching and research). This speaks 6 to the diverse perspectives on mass timber education included in this study. Almost all instructors had experience teaching timber or mass timber. However, even though they were teaching these topics a much smaller number had industry (65.2% general timber and 30.4% mass timber), research (4.3% general timber and 13.0% mass timber), design (26.1% general timber and 8.7% mass timber), or graduate school (17.4% general timber and 0.0% mass timber) experience. Table 1: Engineering Instructor Participant Information General Timber Experience Mass Timber Experience Particip ant Title Design Indu stry Grad School Research Teaching Design Indu stry Grad School Research Teaching U.S. Region Institution Fall 2023 Enrollment † A B C D E F G H I J Professor of Practice X X - Lecturer X - X Associate Professor Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Adjunct Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Associate Professor - - - - - - X - - X X - - X - - - X - - - X X X - - K Instructor - - - - - - - - X - - X X X X - X X X X X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - X X - - - - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - X - - - X X X X - X X X X - South east North east South east Mid west Mid west Southw est South east South east Southw est 19,500 11,300 9,000 56,400 60,000 69,600 32,100 33,000 32,700 West 36,800 X Canada 50,000 Note: Participant E was developing but had not yet taught a timber course: No interviewed participants had mass timber experience in grad school or in design thus columns are not shown for these types of experience † Enrollment numbers taken from institution websites. 7 Table 2: Architecture Instructor Participant Information General Timber Experience Mass Timber Experience Particip ant Title Desi gn Indus try Grad School Resea rch Teach ing Design Indus try Grad School Rese arch Teac hing U.S. Region Institution Fall 2023 Enrollment † A B C D E F G Assistant Professor Associate Professor - Associate Professor Assistant Professor Assistant Professor Practicin g Professor X - X - - - - X X - - X X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X X - X X X X - - - - - - - - X - - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X X - - X X South east North east Mid west North east Mid west North east South Central 9,100 6,900 25,200 5,900 3,100 30,300 69,000 † Enrollment numbers taken from institution websites. Table 3: Construction Instructor Participant Information General Timber Experience Mass Timber Experience Partici pant Title Desi gn Indus try Grad School Rese arch Teach ing Design Indus try Grad School Resea rch Teac hing A B C Associate Professor Lecturer Assistant Professor D Professor - - - - E Visiting Professor X X X X X X - - - - - - - - - - X X X X X - - - - - - - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X X X X X † Enrollment numbers taken from institution websites. U.S. Region North east South Central North west South west South east Institution Fall 2023 Enrollment† 3,700 154,000 21,000 28,100 12,000 In total, there were 11 engineering, 7 architecture, and 5 construction instructor participants. Participants were AEC instructors who volunteered for interviews following initial invitations and two subsequent follow-up requests. The participants interviewed included various ranks of professors and lecturers, from regions all over the United States, with general timber and mass timber experience ranging from industry involvement to teaching. Several participants have substantial experience in multiple areas, indicating a strong academic background on general timber and mass timber. This data represents a diverse sample of perspectives on mass timber education. 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results are organized into several sections, beginning with the analysis of the frequency of timber and mass timber course offerings in AEC accredited programs in the U.S. The proportion of mass timber content within courses is also examined, along with the types of resources used and desired for teaching mass timber. The varying levels of experience among instructors and how it impacts the ability to find teaching resources is also identified. Lastly, insights from instructor interviews highlight the potential of mass timber as a sustainable building material and reveal challenges in curriculum integration. Frequency of Timber/Mass Timber Course Offerings The total number of courses with timber-related content identified in 100 civil engineering, 135 architecture, and 92 construction U.S. institutions evaluated across the three disciplines varies significantly. For engineering, the number of courses with timber content was 78, architecture 118, and construction 37. The total number of courses focused specifically on mass timber was found to be 15 for engineering, 2 for architecture, and 0 for construction. The data on the number of courses, syllabi received, and interviews conducted are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Overview of Timber/Mass Timber Curriculum Integration Across Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Disciplines # of accredited programs in each discipline considered Accredited programs that offered courses with timber/mass timber curriculum Accredited programs that offer courses specifically on mass timber only Courses with timber/mass timber curriculum included Courses with mass timber curriculum only Syllabi received % syllabi received out of total courses Interviews conducted % interviews conducted out of total courses Engineering Architecture Construction 100 135 92 59 (59%) 79 (59%) 36 (39%) 9 (9%) 2 (<1%) 0 (0%) 78 15 17 21.8% 11 14.1% 118 2 18 15.3% 7 5.9% 37 0 14 37.8% 5 13.5% † Timber/Mass Timber courses are identified from accredited 4-year institutions offering curriculum featuring topics such as 'timber', 'mass timber', 'sustainable building', ‘lumber’, ‘wood’, ‘hardwood’, ‘CLT’, or ‘GLT’. Institutions offering more than three courses with such content were evaluated, and only the top three courses were selected. 9 These results suggest that timber/mass timber classes and mass timber only classes are more prevalent in engineering and architecture than in construction, with engineering having the most mass timber-only classes. This may be due to where mass timber is in the adoption lifecycle, which leads with design prior to construction, thus there is more focus on engineers and architects who are designing mass timber systems, versus construction. A varying percentage of syllabi was received out of the total accredited courses. Engineering had a return rate of 21.8%, architecture 15.3%, and construction 37.8%. The variation in response rates may suggest various levels of engagement or resource availability among disciplines. Construction received the highest return rate of the three disciplines, which may reflect a higher engagement or interest in timber/mass timber concepts for those already focused on them. The number of interviews conducted was highest in engineering (11), followed by architecture (7), and construction (5). When compared to the total number of courses, the percentage of interviews was 14.1% for engineering, 5.9 % for architecture, and 13.5% for construction. The availability of the number of courses with timber/mass timber content across engineering, architecture, and construction disciplines is displayed in Table 5. This shows the relative number of courses at accredited institutions, demonstrating a varying degree of emphasis on timber/mass timber education across the three disciplines. The data shows that architecture programs are more commonly offering more and offering multiple courses related to timber, while construction programs provide the least; engineering falls in between but offers the most mass timber specific courses. Specifically in engineering, out of 100 accredited schools, 41% of institutions offer no timber courses and 55% provide only one. Only 4% of the schools offer two timber courses, and no engineering programs offer three or more. This suggests that while timber content is present, it remains limited to a single course at most schools. However, engineering has the highest percentage of accredited programs with mass timber-specific courses (9%). In architecture there are slightly higher numbers. Out of the 135 accredited programs, 42% offer no timber courses, mirroring the data for engineering. However, 39% of schools have one course, and a higher percentage (13%) provide two courses. Furthermore, 6% of architecture programs have three or more courses that have timber content. This suggests a greater integration of timber concepts in architectural education compared to engineering, across multiple courses. Construction falls behind both fields in timber integration. Out of the 92 accredited schools, 61% offer no timber 10 courses, the highest percentage among the three disciplines. Approximately 36% of programs have one course, but only 2% have two courses, and only 1% offer three or more. This suggests that construction programs are less advanced in adopting timber and mass timber education compared to engineering and architecture. In addition, while 2% of accredited programs in architecture offered mass timber courses, no mass timber courses were found in construction programs. This shows how mass timber content currently remains a unique subject with limited course offerings across accredited programs. Table 5: Timber/Mass Timber Curriculum Availability in Accredited Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Programs Engineering Architecture Construction # of accredited programs in each discipline considered 1+ courses with mass timber-specific content 0 courses with timber content 1+ courses with timber (including mass timber) 1 course 2 courses 100 9% 41% 59% 55% 4% 135 2% 42% 58% 39% 13% 92 0% 61% 39% 36% 2% 3+ courses † Timber/Mass Timber courses are identified from accredited 4-year institutions offering curriculum featuring topics such as 6% 0% 1% 'timber', 'mass timber', 'sustainable building', ‘lumber’, ‘wood’, ‘hardwood’, ‘CLT’, or ‘GLT’. Institutions offering more than three courses with such content were evaluated, and only the top three courses were selected. Proportion of Mass Timber Coverage in Courses The percentage of mass timber content covered in each course taught by the surveyed participants was relatively small. Out of the 23 instructors’ courses, only one course contained over 50% of mass timber content. The various mass timber content proportions in each participants’ courses in engineering, architecture, and construction can be seen in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8, respectively. These percentages were approximations made by the instructors when prompted. This shows that although some courses contained mass timber focused content, it was often a small portion of the overall curriculum. Many of these courses contained a larger percentage of content on timber or other structural materials such as masonry. 11 Table 6: Percentage of Mass Timber Content in Each Engineering Survey Participant’s Course Engineering Survey Course Information Survey Participant Course % Mass Timber Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 <2% 33% 40% 20% 50% 40% <2% 10% 30% 30% >98% Table 7: Percentage of Mass Timber Content in Each Architecture Survey Participant’s Course Architecture Survey Course Information Survey Participant Course % Mass Timber Content 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30% 15% 15% 0% 15% 10% 20% 12 Table 8: Percentage of Mass Timber Content in Each Construction Survey Participant’s Course Construction Survey Course Information Survey Participant Course % Mass Timber Content 1 2 3 4 5 20% <2% <2% <2% <2% Mass Timber Topics Covered in Courses To provide an overview of the types of timber/mass timber courses being offered in engineering, architecture, and construction programs, Figure 1 summarizes data derived from syllabi received. These charts visually represent how different disciplines within these fields incorporate timber/mass timber content into their curricula. Each chart displays the distribution of course types offered in each discipline including structural design, construction, building technology, and materials courses. To clarify, the structural design courses focused on building systems and their design. The technology courses were mainly focused on how buildings perform as integrated and efficient systems using advanced technologies (i.e. “Building Technology Systems: Structures and Envelopes”) and materials courses highlight the properties and applications of building materials. By examining these breakdowns, this effort identifies the common methods and areas in which timber/mass timber is currently being taught, highlighting which aspects of the material receive the most academic focus. 13 Figure 1: Distribution of (a) Civil Engineering, (b) Architecture, and (c) Construction Course Types from Syllabi Received It can be observed from Figure 1 that out of the syllabi received from civil engineering courses, 100% represent structural design courses. This aligns with the importance of safety, load-bearing capacities, and the mechanical performance of mass timber in real-world applications that civil engineering designers would be responsible for calculating. The architectural programs displayed show a more diverse course focus. 55.56% of the courses received were structural design courses, followed by 22.22% for construction. Materials and building technology courses made up a small proportion, at 11.11% and 5.56% respectively. This spread suggests that architecture, as a discipline, explores multiple aspects of timber and mass timber rather than concentrating on a single area. Construction courses also have more variation than engineering courses but still seem to focus more on structural design. 42.86% of the courses 14 are structural design related, with materials and construction courses being relatively evenly distributed, comprising 21.43% of the syllabi each. This variety reflects the broad scope of construction education, where students learn how to manage design and/or construction processes of mass timber, alongside material procurement and structural considerations. The specific mass timber-related content also varied across all three disciplines. Engineering courses with mass timber content covered topics such as structural analysis of mass timber beams, columns, beam-columns, and connections. Some also touched on adherence to building codes, evaluation of design loads, and material characteristics (CLT and GLT). Mass timber architecture content focused on design concepts, geometric properties (CLT and GLT), building modeling, construction systems, and assembly methods. Construction courses also covered topics such as construction systems and assembly methods, along with design and analysis of structures, project delivery processes, material testing, and quality control and assurance. These results show that engineering, architecture, and construction disciplines focus on different mass timber topics. Engineering courses appear to emphasize the structural design of mass timber materials, while architecture integrates structural design, technology, and material aspects. Construction also provides a more balanced curriculum than engineering but still highlights structural design concepts. The distribution of course types from the syllabi received can help designate where future education efforts should be focused. By incorporating a larger variety of course types, engineering programs could help engineers learn to use mass timber in more innovative and creative designs, beyond just its structural applications. On the other hand, architecture programs could expand materials and technical courses, given that understanding the behaviors and properties of mass timber is crucial in structural applications. Resources Used and Desired for Mass Timber Instruction To assess the specific types of mass timber resources being used and those desired by instructors, a count of resources used and desired by the participants interviewed was completed. A list of various mass timber resources used by instructors were categorized into groups. This included, first, design standards, including main and supplemental National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS) codes (American Wood Council, 2020), the CLT Handbook (FPInnovations, 2019), the American Wood Council (AWC) Special Design Provisions for Wood and Seismic (SDPWS) (American Wood Council, 2020), the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) Wood Handbook (Forest Products Laboratory, 2010), and the Timber Construction Manual 15 (American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC), 2012)). Second was academic resources, including timber textbooks, online videos, teaching seminars, lecture materials and tools, example syllabi, problem sets, assessment materials and design projects, and third, industry resources such as manufacturer product catalogs, publications, real life projects, and site tours. The final type of resources was industry-developed technical resources, including websites, videos, and representatives (See Appendix Table A4, Table A5, and Table A6 for a full list of the resources). The visual distribution of the utilized and desired resource counts across engineering, architecture, and construction can be seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The breakdown of these resources by category can be seen in Figure 4. Figure 2: Types of Currently Utilized Resources by Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Interviewed Instructors in Timber/Mass Timber Courses 16 Figure 3: Types of Resources Desired by Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Interviewed Instructors for use in Timber/Mass Timber Courses (a) (b) Figure 4: Types of (a) Design Standard, (b) Academic, (c) Industry, and (d) Industry-Developed Technical Resources Currently Utilized (left) and Desired (right) by Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Interviewed Instructors for use in Timber/Mass Timber Courses 17 Figure 4 (Cont’d) (c) (d) Both architecture and construction disciplines showed minimal engagement with industry resources, such as industry publications and catalogs which were more frequently cited in engineering education. Design standards and academic resources were most frequently utilized by interviewed participants, specifically the main NDS codes and timber textbooks, and reading materials. On the other hand, academic and industry resources were also the most desired by the participants. Design projects, reading materials, instructional tools, lecture materials, problem sets, and assessment materials were the most desired academic resources and case studies were the most desired industry resources. Also of importance to note were several comments from engineering instructors in particular, on how it would be helpful to have mass timber design instructional resources similar to what other structural engineering-focused industry organizations have developed for concrete and steel (e.g., PCI [Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, 2025]). Specifically, one of the engineering instructors emphasized the desire for a mass timber tool kit, stating, “...a wood products tool kit that had mini examples of all different types of mass timber and connections...being able to bring it into the classroom is really handy as a kit.” This highlights the importance of hands-on learning tools in creating a more engaging and interactive learning 18 experience, and to help support the instructors and their ability to effectively teach materials. Another instructor emphasized the value of “practical design examples, things that are more realistic for design (not just simple things you see in a textbook)”. This feedback shows the need for materials beyond well-structured textbook problems to provide students with scenarios containing complexities and challenges that are faced in the real world. Participants across all three disciplines also expressed a preference for shorter reading materials. Some instructors explained how concise and targeted resources are seen as more effective for helping students retain complex topics. These insights highlight the importance of practical, diverse, and accessible resources to support student learning in mass timber curriculum. Impact of Industry Timber and Mass Timber Instructor Experience A common theme that occurred during the interviews was the differences in the perspectives of those instructors that had mass timber related experience, particularly in industry, and those who did not. To focus on this further, the distribution of general timber and mass timber experience among interviewed instructors is presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively. These figures visually break down the percentage of instructor experience into categories including design, graduate school, industry, research, and teaching. An instructor with design experience is defined as one that is/was directly involved in the development and design of mass timber building. It can be observed from the graphs that the highest area of experience was teaching for all three disciplines, which is to be expected as nearly all instructors interviewed had taught or were teaching a course that included mass timber content. The second most common was industry experience (45% of engineering, 71% of architecture, and 100% of construction instructors), but still represented only about one in every 4 to 5 instructors. Very few instructors had design, graduate school, or research experience. 19 Figure 5: General Timber Experience Across Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Interviewed Participants Figure 6: Mass Timber Experience Across Engineering, Architecture, and Construction Interviewed Participants 20 It was also noted from the interviews that many participants who struggled to find adequate mass timber teaching materials were also those who did not have industry experience. One instructor who lacked industry experience stated, “I would love to see some more CLT resources out there, but I also haven’t been great at looking for or finding these resources either”. This suggests that there are likely more resources available than are widely known by instructors, particularly those that are not regularly using such resources for work in industry. Many of the interviewed instructors also indicated they lacked the time and desire to look for existing mass timber materials. One instructor of a wood and steel analysis construction course noted, “I only have five weeks to teach timber design, so I can only provide an introduction to mass timber”. Potential and Challenges of Integrating Mass Timber Another common theme from the interviews was that mass timber was often recognized as a promising and desirable material, and thus of interest to integrate into classes. For example, one architecture instructor noted the importance of mass timber, stating, “There is wood to be had and could be used productively if we developed the infrastructure and the knowledge base”. This highlights the potential of mass timber as a sustainable building material and the need for structured curriculum to use it efficiently. Another architecture instructor noted, “It has unique properties in terms of fire resistance while still having other structural properties that steel can’t offer”. However, despite this indicated excitement, many instructors also indicated they lacked the time in their schedule and/or funding from their educational institution to go through with it. An architecture instructor explained, “I did not have adequate time to cover all of the materials in wood design”. This also points to the importance of the development and sharing of educational resources on mass timber to ease the burden on instructors interested in the integration of mass timber into their curriculum. 21 CONCLUSIONS This research focused on assessing the level of integration of mass timber related content into engineering, architecture, and construction curriculums and coursework in 4-year undergraduate and graduate programs in the United States. Mass timber as a construction material is relatively new in the U.S. as compared to steel and concrete, and thus the teaching of content in mass timber is also relatively small as compared to the well-established curriculum related to steel and concrete in higher educational institutions. Improving mass timber education in higher educational institutions is necessary to keep up with the growing popularity of mass timber as a sustainable construction material. This study revealed a relatively low amount of mass timber-specific courses available in accredited universities, but a relatively higher number that have at least one course that covers topics related to timber/mass timber in smaller amount of detail. Across all courses with timber/mass timber content, architecture had the highest number of timber/mass timber courses; both architecture and engineering had similar percentages of programs with courses that included this content. Engineering had the highest number of mass timber-specific courses and construction had the least. Across these courses the main area of focus was on structural design related topics across all three disciplines, however, architecture and construction covered a broader range of mass timber course topics overall as compared to engineering which focused mainly on the structural and design aspects. The instructor-identified gaps in curriculum content and references preventing further integration of mass timber curriculum were also identified, along with how the level of industry experience affected the instructors’ ability to find and use sufficient resources. Instructional tools such as lecture notes, reading materials, case studies, project descriptions, example calculation problems, homework questions, and assessment questions are the main gaps identified in all three disciplines, with mass timber curricula lacking sufficient instructional materials and real-world examples to be used as problems in the classroom. Those that struggled less with such resources included instructors with real-world experience in timber and mass timber. The instructor- suggested solutions to help further support the increased adoption of mass timber curriculum across the AEC industry were recognized as industry resources, specifically design project examples and case studies, and instructional materials such as lecture notes and problem sets. There are several limitations in this study. The interview analysis relied on the select group 22 of participants who were willing and able to be interviewed, representing only a sample of the academic community. By interviewing a broader range of instructors this would enable the ability to compare the results of this study with a larger sample to determine if other common themes and trends are occurring. The specific regions and institutions in which the interviewed participants were from may also limit the applicability of the findings to other areas. Furthermore, limiting the course inventory to the two largest institutions in each state for civil engineering excludes smaller institutions in that discipline from review. This study serves as a valuable resource to help guide future mass timber curricula in higher educational institutions. The recommendations made by instructors currently active in teaching relevant content are crucial in determining what will be most useful to educational programs. As mass timber becomes more popular, it is important that institutions equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to work with this material in the field. Improving mass timber curriculum would help address the current market demands and support the push towards sustainable construction. Future work to build off these findings should focus on creating a more comprehensive curriculum by collaborating with industry professionals to gather real world project examples and standardized instructional tools. Implementing professional development programs could also help educators without industry experience to find and use relevant mass timber resources in their curriculum. A comprehensive and interdisciplinary mass timber education that emphasizes the collaboration between industry and the classroom will lead to better practices in the evolving construction industry and initiate more emphasis on sustainable construction. 23 REFERENCES Ahmed, S., Arocho, I. (2021). Feasibility Assessment of Mass Timber as a Mainstream Building Material in the US Construction Industry: Level of Involvement, Existing Challenges, and Recommendations. ASCE Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000574 ABET. (2021). Accreditation. ABET. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/ Alakavuk, E. (2016). Integration of building construction courses in the architecture education programme. SHS Web of Conferences, 26, 01036. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162601036 Allied Market Research. (2023, April). Mass timber construction market size, share & forecast, 2031. Allied Market Research. Retrieved November 8, 2024, from https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/mass-timber-construction-market-A16621 American Council for Construction Education. (2024). Home. ACCE. https://www.acce-hq.org/ American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC). (2012). Timber construction manual (6th ed.). Wiley. American Wood Council. (2020). National design specification (NDS) for wood construction. American Wood Council. https://www.awc.org/codes-standards/publications/nds-2020 American Wood Council. (2021). Special design provisions for wood and seismic (SDPWS). Author. https://www.awc.org/codes-standards/publications/sdpws Beck, A. (2022). Used the most, taught the least: Challenges in mass timber education. Structure Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.structuremag.org/article/used-the-most-taught-the-least/ Blummer, B., & Kenton, J. (2018). "Academic Libraries and the Struggle to Integrate Digital Literacy into Library Instruction." College & Research Libraries, 79(5), 682-699. Dennehy, K. (2020, September 24). Can wood buildings convert cities from carbon source to carbon vault? Yale School of the Environment. Retrieved from https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/can-wood-buildings-convert-cities-from-carbon- source-to-carbon-vault Dong, K. (2015). Structural Education Deficiencies: Timber and Masonry. STRUCTURE Magazine. Forest Products Laboratory. (2010). Wood handbook: Wood as an engineering material (General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.2737/FPL-GTR-190 FPInnovations. (2019). Cross-laminated timber handbook (U.S. ed., 2nd rev.). FPInnovations. https://www.fpinnovations.ca Francis, S. M. (2019). 2019 NCSEA Structural Engineering Curriculum Survey Results. 24 International Code Council, & American Wood Council. (2020). Introduction. In Mass timber buildings and the IBC® (2021 Edition) (1st ed.). International Code Council. https://www- accessengineeringlibrary-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/content/book/9781265164348/front- matter/preface1 HKS. (2022, October 7). Why mass timber makes sense. HKS Architects. Retrieved February 6, 2025, from https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles/why-mass-timber-makes-sense/ Izzi, M., Casagrande, D., Bezzi, S., Pasca, D., Follesa, M., Tomasi, R. (2018). Seismic behaviour of Cross-Laminated Timber structures: A state-of-the-art-review. Engineering Structures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.05.060 Kuzmanovska, I., Gasparri, E., Tapias Monne, D., Aitchison, M. (2018). Tall Timber Buildings: Emerging Trends and Typologies. 2018 World Conference on Timber Engineering. Lehmann, S., Kremer, P. (2023). Filling the Knowledge Gaps in Mass Timber Construction: Where are the Missing Pieces, What are the Research Needs? Muszyński, L., Gupta, R., Hong, S. H., Osborn, N., Pickett, B. (2019). Fire resistance of unprotected cross-laminated timber (CLT) floor assemblies produced in the USA. Fire Safety Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2018.12.008. National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). (2020). Accreditation criteria. NAAB. https://www.naab.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria Okoye, U., Kam-Biron, M., Perkins, B., Barnes, C. (2017). Higher Education That Includes Timber Engineering. STRUCTURE Magazine. Person, C., Kiesling, C., Cetin, K., Berghorn, G. (2024). Mass timber structural engineering curriculum: Assessment of current teaching and resource needs. Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute. (2025). Education. PCI. https://www.pci.org/PCI/PCI/Education/Education.aspx?hkey=aea1a5a3-ab8d-4831-a367- b96f119bc76d Riddle, A. A. (2023). Mass Timber: Overview and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Sheine, J., Donofrio, M., & Gershfeld, M. (2019, October 18-19). Promoting interdisciplinary integrated design education through mass timber. 2019 Reynolds Symposium: Education by Design, Portland, Oregon. https://doi.org/10.21428/f7d9ca02.330e939e Ross, J. (2024, March 23). Mass timber could surge 25-fold: Is US ready for tall-timber boom? Wood Central. https://woodcentral.com.au/mass-timber-could-surge-25-fold-fueled-by-us-south- high-rise/ 25 Slaton, A. E. (2001). Reinforced concrete and the modernization of American building, 1900- 1930. Johns Hopkins University Press. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). (2023, March 22). Curriculum and expected learning outcomes. UNESCO IIEP Learning Portal. Retrieved from https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en​:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}. USDA Forest Service. (2023). Carbon benefits of wood-based products and energy. Climate Change Resource Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/carbon-benefits-wood-based-products-and-energy VanWyngaarden, K., Pelton, J., Oquendo, P., & Moore, C. (2024). High-impact teaching practices in higher education: Understanding barriers, concerns, and obstacles to their adoption. Trends in Higher Education, 3, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3010006 Woodworks (2023). Open Source Mass Timber Installer Training Curriculum https://www.woodworks.org/mass-timber-installer-training-curriculum/ 26 University of Arizona CE 434 Table A1: Timber/Mass Timber Courses Available in Accredited Engineering Programs APPENDIX Course Code Courses State Largest 2 ABET Accredited University Programs - Engineering University of Alabama Alabama Auburn University Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois University of Alaska - Anchorage University of Alaska Southeast Arizona State University University of Arkansas Arkansas State University University of California Los Angeles University of California Berkeley University of Colorado Boulder Colorado State University Fort Collins Delaware State University University of Central Florida Florida International University Georgia Institute of Technology University of Georgia University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Hawaii at Hilo Boise State University Idaho State University University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign University of Illinois Chicago CE 436 FOEN 5230/6230 CIVL 5690 CE A454 - CEE 353 CVEG 4353 - CVEN 4565 CVEN 5835 CIVE 568 WOOD STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOEN 5230/6230 - ENGINEERED WOOD STRUCTURE DESIGN TIMBER DESIGN TIMBER DESIGN - CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS DESIGN OF WOOD AND MASONRY STRUCTURES TIMBER DESIGN - C&EE 148 WOOD AND TIMBER DESIGN CIVE 124 STRUCTURAL DESIGN IN TIMBER DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES SPECIAL TOPIC: DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES DESIGN OF WOOD AND MASONRY STRUCTURES CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS LABORATORY - CES 5821 - CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS LABORATORY - MASONRY AND TIMBER DESIGN - CEE 4530 TIMBER AND MASONRY DESIGN CVLE 4810 DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES - - CE 454 CE 4466 CEE 469 - - TIMBER DESIGN DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES WOOD STRUCTURES CME 413 DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES 27 University of Connecticut CE 3520 Central Connecticut State University CE 472 TIMBER STRUCTURES University of Delaware CIEG 213 Table A1 (Cont’d) Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachuse tts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Purdue University CE 479 DESIGN OF BUILDING COMPONENTS AND SYSTEMS (ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING) Indiana University Bloomington Iowa State University University of Iowa University of Kansas Kansas State University University of Kentucky University of Louisville Louisiana State University University of Louisiana at Lafayette - - CEE 4164 CE 768 ARE 723 - CEE 523 - - - DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES TIMBER STRUCTURES - TIMBER DESIGN - CIVE 472G WOOD ENGINEERING DESIGN University of Maine CIE 544 University of Southern Maine University of Maryland Global Campus - - University of Maryland College Park ENCE 688W DESIGN OF WOOD AND MASONRY STRUCTURES - - ADVANCED TOPICS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING; DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES BCT 540 DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan Michigan State University University of Minnesota Twin Cities Minnesota State University Mankato Mississippi State University University of Mississippi University of Missouri Columbia Missouri State University Springfield CIVE 5530 ARCH 509 - CEGE 4417/5417 - CE 6983 - - CE 5260 Montana State University ECIV 416 University of Montana University of Nebraska Lincoln University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nevada Las Vegas College of Southern Nevada - CONE 416 CONE 416 CEE 748 - 28 WOOD STRUCTURES MASS TIMBER - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN OF WOOD BUILDINGS - ENGINEERING OF WOOD STRUCTURES - - ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES DESIGN OF WOOD AND TIMBER STRUCTURES - WOOD AND/OR CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS DESIGN WOOD AND/OR CONTEMPORARY MATERIALS DESIGN ADVANCED DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES - (Cont’d) University of New Hampshire Plymouth State University Rutgers University New Brunswick Montclair State University University of New Mexico CEE 789 - CEE 789 TIMBER DESIGN - 14:180:417 MASONRY & WOOD DESIGN - CE 413 - TIMBER AND MASONRY DESIGN New Mexico State University CE 454/545 WOOD DESIGN Table A1 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma University at Buffalo Stony Brook University North Carolina State University at Raleigh University of North Carolina Chapel Hill University of North Dakota North Dakota State University Ohio State University University of Cincinnati University of Oklahoma Norman Oklahoma State University Oregon Oregon State University Pennsylvani a Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Portland State University Penn State University Temple University University of Rhode Island Rhode Island College University of South Carolina Columbia Clemson University South Dakota State University University of South Dakota University of Tennessee University of Memphis Texas A & M University College Station University of Texas Austin Utah Valley University University of Utah University of Vermont Castleton State College CIE 430LR - DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES - CE 528 STRUCTURAL DESIGN IN WOOD - - CE 430 FABENG 5810 - - - TIMBER AND FORM DESIGN DESIGN OF TIMBER AND WOOD-FRAMED BUILDING SYSTEMS - CEES 4753 STRUCTURAL DESIGN IN WOOD CIVE 4573 WSE 210 WSE 225 CE 417 BE 462 - CVE 552 - TIMBER DESIGN RENEWABLE MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY AND UTILIZATION BUILDING DESIGN INNOVATION WITH WOOD TIMBER DESIGN DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES - STRUCTURAL TIMBER DESIGN - ECIV 526 TIMBER AND MASONRY DESIGN WOOD DESIGN DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES - - - - STRUCTURAL DESIGN IN WOOD - MASONRY/TIMBER DESIGN STRUCTURAL DESIGN - WOOD - CE 4070 CEE 458 - - - - ARE 362L - CVEEN 524 CEE 5730 - 29 Table A1 (Cont’d) Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Virginia Tech George Mason University University of Washington Seattle Washington State University West Virginia University Marshall University University of Wisconsin Madison University of Wisconsin Milwaukee University of Wyoming Sheridan College - - - - CEE 454 DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES CE 436 CE 539 CE 464 - - DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES ADVANCED DESIGN OF TIMBER STRUCTURES TIMBER DESIGN - - CIV ENG 573 CE 4295 - DESIGN OF MASONRY AND WOOD STRUCTURES STRUCTURAL TIMBER DESIGN - 30 State Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Table A2: Timber/Mass Timber Courses Available in Accredited Architecture Programs NAAB - Accredited Architecture Programs University of Alabama Course Code - Auburn University ARCH 3320 ARCH 3030 Course Title - MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION I MASS TIMBER AND THE SOUTH Arizona State University ARCH 2113 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES CVEG 4353 TIMBER DESIGN University of Arizona - University of Arkansas University of California Los Angeles - ARCH&UD 433 University of California Berkeley ARCH 160 Academy of Art University California Baptist University California College of the Arts California Polytechnic University - San Luis Obispo California Polytechnic University - Pomona New school of Architecture and Design ARH 320 ARC 493 ARCHT 5400 MARCH 640 - - AR322 AR721 AR725 University of Southern California ARCH 313 Woodbury University ARCH 546 ARCH 321 ARCH 122 - - STRUCTURES III INTRODUCTION TO CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: WOOD AND STEEL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS II MASS TIMBER SYSTEMS AND PRODUCTS AS COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITIES - - STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS II MATERIALS AND METHODS I STRUCTURES II DESIGN OF BUILDING STRUCTURES ADVANCED STRUCTURES INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURES INTRO TO MATERIALS AND METHODS THEORY OF STRUCTURES II DESIGN OF STEEL AND WOOD STRUCTURES FOR TECHNOLOGY STRUCTURES I - - Colorado University of Colorado - Denver ARCH 4340 Connecticut University of Harford ADT 474 Yale University ARCH 2011 University of Central Florida Florida A&M - - Florida Atlantic University ARC 3503 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES 2 Florida Florida International University University of Florida University of Miami ARC 4553L STRUCTURAL DESIGN 1 LAB STRUCTURES 2 - MATERIALS AND METHODS ARC 5554 - ARC 230 / ARC 630 / ARC 661 31 Table A2 District of Colombia (Cont’d) The Catholic University of America University of the District of Columbia Howard University Georgia Institute of Technology Savannah College of Arts & Design Georgia Hawaii Kennesaw State University ARCH 3211 University of Hawaii at Manoa ARCH 724 - ARCP 115 ARCH 502 ARCH 401 ARCH 4015 ARCH 6251 ARCH 241 ARCH 319 - MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES II (STRENGTH) MATERIALS AND METHODS I STRUCTURES 1 BUILDING STRUCTURES I CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY I: BUILDING MATERIALS AND ASSEMBLIES STRUCTURES: GENERAL STRUCTURE ARCHITECTURE STRUCTURES II: STEEL AND WOOD ARCHITECTURE SYSTEMS III: QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN - Idaho University of Idaho - Illinois Institute of Technology University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign University of Illinois Chicago ARCH 480 MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION ARCH 482 MATERIAL: FIBROUS - - - - ADVANCED ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES Illinois Judson University ARC 441 The School of the Art Institute Chicago Southern Illinois University - Carbondale University of Notre Dame Indiana Indiana University ARCH 2251 ARCHITECTURE: STRUCTURES 1 ARC242 ARC362 ARCH 40511 - BUILDING TECHNOLOGY I: WOOD STRUCTURES II: WOOD AND CONCRETE STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR ARCHITECTS - Ball State University ARCH 418 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 3 Iowa Iowa State University - - Kansas University of Kansas ARCH 624 Kansas State University ARCH 347 ARC 553 Kentucky University of Kentucky ARC 584 Louisiana State University ARC 3004 ARC 599 STRUCTURES II STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS IN ARCHITECTURE I STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS II DESIGN OF TIMBER AND MASONRY STRUCTURES TOPICS IN ARCHITECTURE - DES. OF LIGHT FRAME STRUC SYS ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II Louisiana University of Louisiana at Lafayette - - Louisiana Tech University ARCH 343 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS II Tulane University - - 32 (Cont’d) University of Maine at Augusta ARC 322 STRUCTURES II Table A2 Maine Maryland Massachusetts College of Art and Design EDAD 302 SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE III EDAD 317 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II EDAD 327 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES III Morgan State University University of Maryland College Park University of Massachusetts Amherst Northeastern University Boston Architectural College Wentworth Institute of Technology Harvard University Massachusetts Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Michigan Lawrence Technological University Michigan Andrews University University of Detroit Mercy Kendall College of Art and Design at Ferris State University of Minnesota at Minneapolis Dunwoody College of Technology Mississippi State University Drury College Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska ARCH 312 BUILDING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS ARCH 465 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II - - ARCH 2240 ARCHITECTONIC SYSTEMS - ARCH 2200, ARCH 7300 ARCH 3900, ARCH 8800 SCI 6229 SCI 6230 EDAD 202 - BUILDING MATTERS: MATERIALS & ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES 02 STRUCTURAL DESIGN II CASES IN CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION METHODS & MATERIALS EDAD 227 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES I EDAD 427 4.440/4.462 4.463 - ARC 3513/5523 ARCH 201 ARCH 205 ARCH 2330 ARCH 2640 - STRUCTURES OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL DESIGN BUILDING TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS: STRUCTURES AND ENVELOPES - INTERMEDIATE STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION I STRUCTURES I STRUCTURES I BUILDING STRUCTURES I - ARCH 4571 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES I - - - - - - Washington University at St. Louis ARCH 448A STRUCTURES II Montana State University ARCH 344 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II University of Nebraska Lincoln Nevada University of Nevada Las Vegas - - - - 33 Table A2 (Cont’d) New Jersey New Mexico New Jersey Institute of Technology ARCH 282 STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES ARCH 541G CONSTRUCTION I ARCH 223 CONSTRUCTION I Princeton University Kean University University of New Mexico City College of The City University of New York Columbia University - - - ARCH 24501 ARCH 35402 - The Cooper Union ARCH 132 Cornell University New York Institute of Technology ARCH 5615 ARCH 2615 ARCH 221 - - - CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY I STRUCTURES II - DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS - STRUCTURES II BUILDING TECHNOLOGY II: CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS BUILDING TECHNOLOGY II: STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION I ARCH 313 STRUCTURAL TIMBER DESIGN Parsons School of Design - New York Pratt University ARCH 762 ARCH 632 ARCH 565A - TECHNOLOGY 2: MATERIALS & ASSEMBLIES MATERIALITIES & QUALITIE QUALITIES MATERIALS & METHODS ARCH 261 ARCHITECTURE MATERIALS Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rochester Institute of Technology State University of New York at Buffalo SUNY College of Technology at Alfred State Syracuse University New York City College of Technology North Carolina State University at Raleigh University of North Carolina Charlotte ARCH 2330 ARCH 451/641 ARC 455LAB - - STRUCTURES I FUNDAMENTALS OF BUILDING SYSTEM STRUCTURES 3 LAB - - ARCH 2481 STRUCTURE II - - ARCH 4301 ARCH 4304 MATERIAL & ASSEMBLY PRINCIPLES STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS North Carolina North Dakota North Dakota State University ARCH 450 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING 34 Table A2 (Cont’d) Ohio State University - University of Cincinnati Ohio Kent State University Miami University Bowling Green State University University of Oklahoma Norman Oklahoma Oklahoma State University - ARCH 40401/50401 ARCH 40301/50301 - - - METHODS & MATERIALS I STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS I - - ARCH 4233/5233 ARCH 4233 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II - ARCH 5023 ARCH 5233 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES II TIMBER & MASONRY DESIGN & ANALYSIS STRUCTURES: TIMBERS ARCH 3223 Oregon University of Oregon ARCH 562 ARCH 471 ARCH 462 ARCH 571 Portland State University - Penn State University ARCH 203 Temple University ARCH 3152 STRUCTURAL DESIGN BUILDING ENCLOSURE STRUCTURAL DESIGN BUILDING ENCLOSURE - MATERIALS & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION I MATERIALS & METHODS Marywood University ARCH 547 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES IV Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Drexel University Philadelphia University + Thomas Jefferson University of Pennsylvania Carnegie Mellon University - ARCH 304 ARCH 4310/5310 Roger Williams University ARCH 231 Rhode Island School of Design Clemson University South Dakota State University - - - University of Tennessee - Knoxville ARCH 263 Tennessee University of Memphis - - STRUCTURES II CONSTRUCTION I CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS & ASSEMBLIES I - - - DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION I: BUILDING IN WOOD - Belmont University ARCH 3041 STRUCTURES I 35 Table A2 (Cont’d) Texas A & M University College Station ARCH 431 INTEGRATED STRUCTURES University of Texas Austin ARC 327R University of Texas San Antonio Texas University of Texas Arlington Rice University Texas Tech University University of Houston - ARCH 3323/5323 - - - TOPICS IN ARCHITECTURAL THEORY - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS - - - Prairie View A&M University ARCH 4343 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS II Utah Utah Valley University University of Utah - - - - Vermont Norwich University ARCH 4075 BUILDING STRUCTURES Virginia Tech Virginia Hampton University University of Virginia - - - - - - University of Washington Seattle ARCH 351 ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURES I Washington Washington State University West Virginia Fairmont State University - - - - Wisconsin University of Wisconsin Milwaukee ARCH 410 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN I 36 Table A3: Timber/ Mass Timber Courses Available in Accredited Construction Programs State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California ACCE - Accredited Construction Programs Auburn University University of Alabama Tuskegee University University of Alaska, Anchorage Arizona State University John Brown University Northern Arizona University University of Arkansas at Little Rock California Baptist University California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo San Diego State University California State University Colorado Colorado State University CON 458 Connecticut Central Connecticut State University CM 520 Delaware Florida University of Delaware Florida Gulf Coast University Florida Institute of Technology Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Florida International University University of Central Florida Seminole State College of Florida University of Florida University of North Florida Georgia Southern University Kennesaw State University University of Hawaii at Manoa Boise State University Bradley University Illinois State University TEC 327 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Ball State University Indiana State University Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis Purdue University Iowa State University - - - CMGT 45000 - - 37 Course Code Course Title - - CSMT 350 - CON 424 - - GREEN BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION - STRUCTURAL DESIGN CM 123 CONSTRUCTION METHODS I CON 340 CM 214 - CEM 437 - - CON 2000 - - - - BCN: 3224 - CM 3110 CEE 471 CON 470 BUILDING STRUCTURES RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT - STRUCTURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR CONSTRUCTION II CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS - - STATICS AND MECHANICS FOR CONSTRUCTION - - - - CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES - RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION METHODS DESIGN OF STEEL AND WOOD STRUCTURES DESIGN OF BUILDING STRUCTURES - - - STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND ANALYSIS - - (Cont’d) Kansas State University Eastern Kentucky University CNS 523 CON 322 Northern Kentucky University CMGT 121 Table A3 Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachuset ts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Louisiana State University University of Louisiana, Monroe University of Maryland, Eastern Shore Wentworth Institute of Technology Eastern Michigan University Western Michigan University Ferris State University Michigan State University Michigan Technological University Dunwoody College of Technology Minnesota State University Mississippi State University University of Southern Mississippi Missouri State University University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nevada, Las Vegas University of New Mexico Alfred State College State University of New York, ESF Utica University East Carolina University North Carolina A&T State University North Dakota State University Bowling Green State University Kent State University Ohio State University Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania University of Oklahoma Oregon State University Drexel University Pennsylvania College of Technology 38 TIMBER CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS II - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS - GREEN BUILDING FUNDAMENTALS BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WOOD & STEEL ANALYSIS & DESIGN STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS - - - - - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS II - - - - VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION STEEL AND WOOD DESIGN IN CONSTRUCTION - - - - - TEMPORARY STRUCTURES - - - - - STRUCTURES FOR CONSTRUCTION MGRS I - STRUCTURES II - - - CONS 2010 - CMTE 350 CONM 1200 CONM 2600 CNST 412 - - - - - CM 220 - - - - CNST 242 CEM 370 - - - - - CMG 436 - - - - - CONSYSM 3545 - CEM 383 - - Table A3 Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas (Cont’d) Roger Williams University CNST 465 Clemson University Lamar University Prairie View A&M University Texas A&M University Texas Tech University Texas State University University of Houston - - - - - COSC 253 - - CNST 3155 CNST 4311 University of Texas at San Antonio CSM 2143 Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming The University of Utah Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Central Washington University University of Washington Washington State University University of Wisconsin, Stout Marquette University University of Wyoming CSM 3143 CVEEN 5500 - CEM 4314 CM 313 - - - - CM3200 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION - - - - - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS I - - CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND TESTING STRUCTURAL STEEL AND TIMBER CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND TESTING STRUCTURES I SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS - DESIGN OF WOOD STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS I - - - - STATICS AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS 39 Table A4: Currently Utilized and Suggested Mass Timber Resources in Engineering Category No. of Responses Design Standards Main Main and Supplemental CLT Handbook American Wood Council Special Design Provisions for Wood and Seismic (SDPWS) Engineered Wood Association Load-Span Tables for APA Wood Structural Panels Forestry Products Laboratory (FPL) Handbook Academic Design of Wood Structures - ASD/LRFD, 8th ed. Other Reading Material Online Videos Teaching Seminar for Timber Instructional Tools & Materials Example Syllabus Lecture Materials Problem/Solution Sets Assessment Materials Design Projects Industry Unnamed/General Simpson Strong Ties Wood Construction Connectors catalog Publications Case Studies Site Visits and Tours Industry-Developed Technical Resources Seminar Videos Website Local Representative Currently Utilized Suggested Responses Response Rate Responses Response Rate NDS Codes 6 3 3 3 1 1 Textbooks 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55% 27% 27% 27% 9% 9% 55% 9% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Vendor Products Specifications 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 18% 9% 18% 9% 0% 9% 9% 18% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 9% 18% 9% 18% 27% 18% 0% 0% 18% 9% 0% 0% 0% † Percentages taken out of the total number of participants interviewed for each discipline (Structural Engineering = 11, Architecture = 7, Construction = 5) 40 Table A5: Currently Utilized and Suggested Mass Timber Resources in Architecture Category No. of Responses Currently Utilized Suggested Responses Response Rate Responses Response Rate Design Standards Main Main and Supplemental CLT Handbook American Wood Council Special Design Provisions for Wood and Seismic (SDPWS) Engineered Wood Association Load-Span Tables for APA Wood Structural Panels Forestry Products Laboratory (FPL) Handbook Academic Design of Wood Structures - ASD/LRFD, 8th ed. Other Reading Material Online Videos Teaching Seminar for Timber Instructional Tools & Materials NDS Codes 1 0 1 1 0 0 Textbooks 0 3 0 0 0 14% 0% 14% 14% 0% 0% 0% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 71% 0% 0% 71% 0 0 5 5 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 71% 71% 43% 100% Vendor Products Specifications 0% Example Syllabus Lecture Materials Problem/Solution Sets Assessment Materials Design Projects Industry Unnamed/General Simpson Strong Ties Wood Construction Connectors catalog Publications Case Studies Site Visits and Tours Industry-Developed Technical Resources Seminar Videos Website Local Representative † Percentages taken out of the total number of participants interviewed for each discipline (Structural Engineering = 11, Architecture = 7, Construction = 5) 0% 0% 86% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 0% 0% 0% 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0% 0 41 Table A6: Currently Utilized and Suggested Mass Timber Resources in Construction Category No. of Responses Design Standards Main Main and Supplemental CLT Handbook American Wood Council Special Design Provisions for Wood and Seismic (SDPWS) Engineered Wood Association Load-Span Tables for APA Wood Structural Panels Forestry Products Laboratory (FPL) Handbook Academic Design of Wood Structures - ASD/LRFD, 8th ed. Other Reading Material Online Videos Teaching Seminar for Timber Instructional Tools & Materials Example Syllabus Lecture Materials Problem/Solution Sets Assessment Materials Design Projects Industry Unnamed/General Currently Utilized Suggested Responses NDS Codes Response Rate Responses Response Rate 2 0 1 0 0 1 Textbooks 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40% 0% 20% 0% 0% 20% 0% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Vendor Products Specifications 0 0% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 3 1 4 0 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 80% 0% 80% 60% 20% 80% 0% 0 0 0% 0% 1 0 0 Simpson Strong Ties Wood Construction Connectors catalog Publications Case Studies Site Visits and Tours Industry-Developed Technical Resources Seminar Videos Website Local Representative † Percentages taken out of the total number of participants interviewed for each discipline (Structural Engineering = 11, Architecture = 7, Construction = 5) 0% 80% 20% 0% 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 2 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 42 Table A7: Interview Questions Interview Questions 1. Course Taught: 2. Is this course designed to be focused on timber, mass timber, something more general? 3. What % of the course includes concepts of mass timber? 4. How did you come to teach this course? (self-developed, inherited from someone else?) 5. Do you have experience working with timber (general)? In what capacity? (Research, design, teaching, industry, etc.) 6. Do you have experience working with mass timber? In what capacity? 7. Did you add the mass timber component yourself? [if yes why?] Why do you think including this is important? 8. Do you cover concepts related to mass timber (CLT, glulam, etc.) in your course? If so, which topics do you discuss and to what extent? 9. What kinds of reference materials do you currently use to guide/develop your instructional materials (related to mass timber)? 10. Are you able to find adequate materials to support teaching mass timber? 11. Are there any gaps in current resources available to you that prevent you from adequately teaching certain concepts related to mass timber? Which concepts in particular? 12. What concepts would you potentially like to cover in the future (that you don't currently, or are working on developing) 13. What type(s) of materials would you find most helpful if developing content? a. Lecture notes b. Reading material c. Case studies and related activities d. Project descriptions e. Assessment questions f. Homework questions g. Example calculation problems h. Others? 43