Construction education and professional development have similar educational objectives, yet fundamentally different strategies and outcomes. The goal of construction education within a post-secondary environment is to cultivate a student's intellectual growth. The educational environment is structured to allow matriculating students an opportunity to begin successful careers in their chosen profession. Construction educators accomplish this objective by concentrating student efforts at developing fundamental knowledge; acquiring entry-level skills; and creating a mindset focused on critical problem solving. Professional development continues the growth of skills and knowledge outward to meet the changes and challenges within the industry or profession.

This paper describes some meaningful ways that education and industry can partner to enhance quality education and professional growth. This is a continuation of a dialog started thirty years ago among the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC), and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) that resulted in establishing the American Institute of Constructors (AIC). These 1971 efforts were aimed at establishing more meaningful ways to enhance contractor professionalism. (Robson and Bashford, 1995) What industry support that previously existed for individual opportunities aimed at professional registration or constructor certifications is all but non-existent. Neither the AGC nor the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) actively support professional constructor certification. Although these organizations continue to expend significant resources on improving construction education, their efforts remain incomplete without a mechanism that supports individual aspirations for higher levels of professionalism.

The establishment of professional constructor status comparable to that granted engineers and architects must become an industry priority. Although professional certification may sound ominously bureaucratic it is bottom line oriented. This becomes increasingly evident as the construction industry directs itself away from commodity construction, and toward client service. As this continues to occur, professional constructor status holds an increasingly competitive advantage through increased qualifications. The concept of a commodity industry gives way to one of professionals delivering complex products.

Industry/alliances for professional constructor status and the roles various organizations should play in developing professional standards is examined below. In addition, efforts are focused on identifying the proper balance between educational curriculum and professional standards. Once industry establishes nationally consistent professional standards, construction educators can use these standards to measure what academic competencies are necessary for achieving professional constructor status. Colorado State University has used the content descriptions from the AIC’s Certified Professional Constructor (CPC) exam as a method to organize intended learning outcomes in a curriculum reform effort. (Hauck, 1998) Professional standards will also force the industry to define a career path that clearly promotes professional growth and achievements for professional constructor status.

Construction is a practical, field intensive, experiential profession, yet construction educational lacks a strong holistic model due to a missing "practice" component. To compensate for this shortcoming industry/education relationships are considered essential. These linkages maintain contact between classrooms and the real world. Johnston (1990) provides a thorough and insightful exploration of the enormous benefits these relationships provide to construction education. The importance of the relationship is underscored by the American Council of Construction Education (ACCE) insistence that industry advisory boards be considered standard criteria for achieving and maintaining accreditation. (ACCE, 1999)

Industry/advisory relationships take many forms with each partner bringing different objectives to the table. Many university construction programs are continually striving to achieve support from industry by developing or strengthening their construction industry/education alliances. These alliances are conceived for many reasons, each intent on supporting mutual improvements but with underlying agendas. Foremost in the minds of industry participants is access to students. Industry wants access to the best and the brightest students, hopefully with an edge toward hiring. On the other hand, university programs perceive industry/education alliance as a means for increasing resources, foremost of which is an opportunity to creatively increase external funding for their programs. As is always the case, entering alliances is usually done on a self- interest basis and continues based on how well these needs are fulfilled. When an alliance partner's needs are not being met there is a tendency for the alliance to dissolve. For example, industry partners that are unable to hire graduates from a particularly construction program will strengthen their ties with another program from which they can hire, thus severing the relationship.

University programs in an effort to confirm the relevance and validity of their educational mission welcomes input on industry’s educational needs. Although receptive, educators are cautious when industry participants often insist that students be trained in a narrow industry manner. This is echoed many times when industry partners comment, "the students should know Primavera," or they should have digitizer take-off skills. Industry's vision is that students should come better equipped with particular skill sets, in effect better trained. Educators counter with "students must have critical thinking skills." At the root of this sometimes tension-producing difference, are the means, methods and content of teaching that educators perceive as their domain.

There are fundamental differences in educational philosophy that often leads to conflict between educators and constructors alike. This has been witnessed for years during program accreditations and in discussions at American Council of Construction Education (ACCE) annual meetings. Educating a student is different from training an employee. Training may be industry’s term for "practice." An in depth practice component can only be gotten from industry. One strategy for strong academic/industry relations is to work with industry in developing commitments to provide internships for students in both good and bad economic times. Thus educators can provide for critical thinking and industry can provide the practice component of construction. A 1998 survey on construction practice internships concluded these internships as desirable and worthy of industry support. The survey did not explore the reasoning behind their support. (Weber, 1998) It is this author’s experience that industry uses internships as a form of employee recruitment, with only the most committed and professional companies agreeing to take an intern prior to "waiting for the job to break." An internship is where a student gets the "professional practice" component of education. Industry must step up and commit to supporting "practice" if it is to remain a desirable and demanding feature of construction education. Likewise if "practice" is a viable academic activity it should be rewarded with academic credit. Industry/education support for "practice" credits will strengthen the alliance and help industry and construction education capture and retain the best and brightest.

Strong industry/education alliance must include discussions on educational processes and student outcomes. To shy away from these dialogues only broadens the differences between industry and education. This paper will focus on a limited goal statement for this alliance. Industry/education alliances should have only two major educational goals. All other goals are a subset of these primary goals.

Educational Goal #1: Improving the quality of those people entering the industry.

Educational Goal #2: Improving the quality of those people already in the industry.

Individual goals that are attainable must be made available for those people entering the construction industry. These goals must be identifiable and should allow a progression throughout an individual’s career. Application of this progression should apply at both the craft and managerial levels. Entry-level goals as well as advanced goals that foster individual growth and personal advancement must be available.

Both educational institutions and industry organizations should recognize that there is ample room to affect personal advancement within the construction industry. Entry-level professional recognition at a national level allows those individuals entering construction to benchmark their growth and subsequent advancement to higher levels. High levels of career advancement can be benchmarked by the development and support of professional certification. To meet these goals educational opportunities must be supported and expanded to assist professional growth throughout the construction industry. Mills and Pruitt have addressed how academic/industry relationships can support change by reducing fragmentation in the field to classroom learning process. Among their contentions is that learning is a continuum and that increasing the levels of industry professionalism can drive a national construction education model. (Mills & Pruitt, 1999)

Mulligan and Knutson (1999) have identified in "Professionalism through Certification" that "success is all about image." Swoboda and Cieslik (1996) reason that young people are averse to entering the construction industry because of its undesirable image. Alter and Sims (1997) and Mulligan and Knutson (1999) both make a strong case that constructor certification will improve this image. Joint construction industry/education alliances can foster an educational environment built on ascending levels of professional competence and peer review. This can be accomplished through procedures that promote an individual’s aspiration of becoming a professionally recognized constructor. This would allow construction to stand equal to engineering and architecture as professional career choices. At present, only the American Institute of Constructors (AIC) offers any form of recognition as a certified professional constructor (AIC 1999).

The AIC is inadequately funded and without active support from ABC or AGC, the two major construction organizations. Out of necessity these two organizations have been actively involved in all phases of craft training while handling their managerial or professional training internally. Craft training, an extremely important issue, has demanded a large portion of the organizations efforts and resources. Now that craft training has joined these organizations into a national effort it is time to look beyond the crafts. The benefits from a national effort to establish a rigorous professional certification process will offer vast opportunities and societal endorsements to construction. One can hope that professional arrogance and rivalry between these two organizations is not what prevents joining forces to provide increased attention for construction as a profession worthy of high level recognition. This is an endeavor that is aimed at individual qualifications and should be actively endorsed by all major construction organizations. Quite simply, what is there to lose?

Once education and professionalism are viewed as a continuum within a long-term growth ladder, industry/education partners can ally from similar perspectives. Constructors can concentrate their educational efforts on incoming knowledge and skills while educators focus on measures that challenge their students to discover and internalize critical thinking skills. According to the AIC, the tenens of professionalism are; an identifiable body of knowledge, (available through education); a code of professional ethics, (offered by the profession); and a learned society, (demonstrated through examination). (AIC 1994) Implementing professional certification based on education and rigorously applied examinations will jointly raise the levels of construction education and professionalism.

The educational objective of industry is to create and maintain, at all levels, an educated and skilled workforce. This is evident in the increased educational activity being generated by professional construction organizations such as the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC). As previously noted, many of industry's educational activities involve improving the crafts. Consistent with the educational goals of industry, there should exist efforts to promote mechanism that; 1) establishes high professional standards through professional certification as a condition to state licensing, and 2) fosters career professional development through continued professional development linked to local universities. Alter and Sims (1997) suggest that continuing education become a mandatory requirement for continued professional certification, much as mandatory continuing education is required to remain licensed in some states.

With regard to Swoboda and Cieslik's (1996) commentary on the negative image presented by construction, Robson and Bashford (1995) have penned an eloquent commentary on what role education can have in effectively changing the public's perceptions of construction from an undesirable trade to a highly desirable profession. Additionally, Hauck and Rockwell (1996) have conducted an extensive survey on the desirable skills and knowledge required of construction professionals. This work was in conjunction with AIC's successful efforts to produce and administer an international certified professional constructor (CPC) examination. For industry to maintain and internally enhance the workforce, strategies should be developed that also allows qualified crafts people entry into the professional ranks.

It is evident that industry's future educational objectives should be a mechanism for assessing incoming professional qualifications. Implementing and embracing high levels of professionalism through certification raises the quality and reputation of the construction profession. How incoming professionals are prepared, may be the most critical aspect of an industry/education alliance. To confuse the outgoing educational strategies of construction educators with incoming requirements for professional constructors does a disservice to both camps. An industry concentrating on peer reviewed standards, for certified construction professionals, can make the following achievements:

The establishment of professional constructor certification immediately lifts the academic status of construction education. This expansion of the learned society into construction is an excellent opportunity for incorporating the concepts of education "portability" and "practice" into curriculums. Portability is the capacity to carry earlier educational or training accomplishments from one academic institution to another. This is particularly important as students move through high school, trade school, community college, professional workshops, and university construction programs. "Practicing" is simply trial under fire or accomplishing a particular set of learning objectives through on the job training. Educational aspects of "practice" are best achieved through internships and co-ops.

A key issue for reaching consensus on "portability and practice" requires a structured relationship between educators and constructors that determines how non-traditional aspects of education are academically rewarded. Mills and Pruitt (1999) give some insight into how a holistic approach to education can be built around extended academic activity, including academic credit for life-long learning. Their premise is that education should connect the working world to the classroom, and that specialized professional knowledge should be eligible for academic credit. Within each facet of an alliance are different needs, agendas, and pressures that are accomplished in different time frames. High school is a four-year program, independent of college consideration. Community colleges are two-year programs and universities are four-year programs. Continuing education and professional workshops may not be accredited nor perceived as worthy of academic credit. In addition, there are management based construction education programs, while others are technical/engineering oriented and still others a comprehensive blend of technical, business and management curricula. With such diversity, educators alone cannot accomplish the difficult task of reaching consensus on a portable model for academic credit, nor the incorporation of "practice" credits.

A nationally consistent, yet academically flexible educational model that provides for "portability and practice" across the spectrum for students of construction is essential. It is important to recognize the difficulties of accomplishing this objective. To achieve success in these matters the collective effort of industry, education and the ACCE is needed. Linking a nationally supported professional constructor certification program, either AIC or another organizations, to construction education provides the ability to incorporate "portability and practice" into the educational mission. Strong leadership by a locally cognizant and independent accreditation institution, such as ACCE, can help in developing a locally flexible model for construction education. The concept of educational flexibility in this model cannot be over emphasized. To achieve success while integrating "portability and practice" into mainstream university level education requires that curriculum development be left to local programs, not mandated by industry nor imposed by an accreditation agency. The ability to use a national examination for professional certification would allow universities to measure academic outcomes through successes on the certification examination.

To create learning that span high school to post-graduate and that incorporates "practice" credits requires the cooperation and assistance of industry and construction organizations to work through the various state legislatures to facilitate this academic extension. A nationally consistent but locally determined educational model can improve the transfer of credits from one institution to another. In addition, the emphasis on a consistent national model allows broadening of the community college system to prepare students to transfer into 4-year programs with maximum credits. The solution to expanded academic opportunities is predicated on the development and support of nationally accepted standards for certified professional constructors.

Benefits of an expanded model of construction education linked to professional certification are:

A locally flexible education model based on a national model of educational continuity gives local educators and construction professionals a working model that can address local preferences for linked learning.

The AIC's "Certified Professional Constructor" (CPC) examination has begun to drive the changes in construction professionalism. The goal of professional certification is to raise the standards of practice thereby benefiting all parties involved, including society at large. Professional certification can now be proposed as a stimulus to alter the traditional delivery of academic credit. To create a holistic approach to construction education through professionalism, industry must vigorously support professional certification and be prepared to formalize educational links that are portable and consistent. This linkage can be accomplished by, 1) formulating a national certification or registration requirement, 2) linking student internships as a "practice" component, 3) requiring a structured pre-professional development prior to certification, and 4) maintaining a continued professional development program. By approaching education and professional development as a continuum, professional standards will certainly rise. This movement toward professional certification supports the building of desirable incoming skills needed by the construction industry while providing sustained access to students and future professionals. Curriculum development and the preparation for critical thinking of matriculating students can remain in the educator's domain.

Educators can support "portability" by working towards acceptance of courses from nationally accredited construction programs as "equals" to their own courses. There is much arrogance in the educational system that assumes courses and programs at one institution are not equal to those at another. The opportunity to alter this mindset through a rigorous national examination for achieving certification is excellent. Content in curriculum development can be coordinated by the institution as it relates to the national standards for constructor registration and alternative "practice" credits resulting from performance testing can be implemented.

By allying with a consistent agenda and understanding individual strengths, both industry and education can forge a national model for construction education. This model can foster concepts of professionalism, portability, practice and outcome assessments that extend the educational spectrum. These structural changes to education and professionalism can provide the needed aspirations for individuals wanting to make construction their profession.

ACCE - American Council of Construction Education (1999). Relations with Industry. Accreditation Standards and Criteria, Monroe, LA.

AIC - American Institute of Constructors (1994). White Paper on Construction Certification. St. Petersburg, Florida.

AIC - American Institute of Constructors (1999). Certified Professional Constructor Candidate Handbook. St. Petersburg, Florida.

Alter, Kirk & Sims, Bradford. (1997). Professionalizing the Construction Industry: The Role of Licensing, Continuing Education, and Certification. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction.

Hauck, Allan J. (1998). Toward a Taxonomy of Learning Outcomes for Construction Management Education. Journal of Construction Education, 2(3), 172-192.

Hauck, Allan J. & Rockwell, Quentin T. (1996). Desirable Characteristics of the Professional Constructor, The Initial Results of the Constructor Certification Skills and Knowledge Survey. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 137-144.

Johnston, Hal. (1990). The Industry and Universities: Partner for Better Construction Education. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 59-65.

Mills, Thomas & Pruitt, J. Doug. (1999). Raise the Level of the Lake and All the Boats Will Rise Together. National Construction Industry Education Forum, American Council of Construction Education, Las Vegas, NV, March, 21-22 1999.

Mulligan, D.E. & Knutson, K. (1999). Professionalism Through Certification. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 223-230.

Robson, Ken & Bashford, Howard. (1995). The Emerging Construction Discipline. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 163-170.

Swoboda, Linda B.& Cieslik, Trish. (1996). Selecting the Construction Industry as a Career - An Analysis. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 175-194.

Weber, Sandra L. (1998). Field Internships for Construction Students: A Survey. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction, 61-78.   

Go to the  Home page for:

Associated Schools of Construction Proceedings of the Annual Conference.  Copyright 2003
For problems or questions regarding this web contact Tulio Sulbaran, Proceedings Editor/Publisher.
Last updated: September 09, 2004.