Education for the Builders of Tomorrow – Can We Do it Better? 

Introduction

In order to prepare the participants of the building process for the future, we need to look at what is needed for the future.  This paper looks towards this future, and the changes needed in our current educational models.  All of this with a view of our primary client the student and our secondary client the building industry.  

“…The job of a college is to bring young people to intellectual and emotional maturity; to intelligence, by which I mean a subtle balance between the intellect and the emotions; not merely to an arbitrary selected amount of cramming…. The common expression ‘to get’ an education is significant.  It lights up the entire fallacy of the prevailing system, for education can only be experienced; one ‘gets’ only information or ‘facts’-and the ‘facts’ acquired in the average college have to do with the past and are mainly worthless to one destined to live in the future.  To put the emphasis upon the teaching of ‘facts’, the giving of mere information is to train people in and for the past…

 

…But surely, you will say, truth, education, not mere head-stuffing, is the goal …  I should like to think so, but, I am sorry to say that, if it is, it is a long way off, such a long way that the undergraduate in the average college seldom even gets a glimpse of it…”  Excerpts from Black Mountain: An Experiment in Education (Adamic 1990)

A Call for Change…

 The building industry is complex in nature.  The industry has moved towards complex, multidisciplinary project teams, drastically reduced duration times for delivery of projects, and increased preferences for alternative delivery methods (such as design-build, partnering, and design-build-operate).  It will only continue to become more complex with the growing challenges of evolving delivery methods, changing regulatory requirements, and global competitiveness.  Changes in the organizational structures of projects have led to increased collaboration between project participants.  Communication and efficient transfer of information are essential skills for success in the professional.  There is a strong need for providing a new educational model that effectively teaches construction students the “higher order skills” of critical thinking, communication, people management, and leadership. 

Teaming and leadership are fundamental in support of and extension of these three higher order skills. We further must prepare students who are not afraid of change.  Bur rather, we must prepare students that will embrace beneficial change.

Learning to think critically, to analyze and synthesize information, to solve problems in a variety of contexts, and to work effectively in teams are crucial skills for modern employees, and yet there is little evidence that our current educational systems are developing these skills.  College and university programs are renowned for producing graduates who are intellectually and technically gifted, but lack the holistic perspective to be able to be successful practitioners.  Professors spend their time in the classroom developing specific technical skills and often lose sight of the application of those skills in practice.  It is often said that a builder is “hired for his or her technical skills, fired for poor people skills, and promoted for leadership and management skills” (Bowman 2000).  Construction educators need to recognize that the professional world places high value on employees who can communicate, collaborate, and work across disciplines.

Calling for a new builder for the future, educators must provide a holistic education, which emphasizes critical thinking capabilities and strong interpersonal and management skills.  “Rapid changes in the nature of knowledge and in the workforce have created a need for knowledge workers, who can learn efficiently and think critically”(Halpern 1996).  The industry is calling upon educators to produce construction managers who are capable of leading interdisciplinary teams, combining technical ingenuity with business acumen, and effectively communicating within a comprehensive social framework (Bowman 2000). 

Better Thinkers and Communicators…

Educators have come to recognize that effective teaching focuses on the active involvement of students in their own learning.  This includes having sufficient opportunities for faculty and peer interactions that engage the students’ natural curiosity.  The active and motivating nature of learning is not optimized in the “traditional” paradigm of classrooms, where students sit quietly, and passively receiving information from an instructor standing in front of the class.  New methodologies of learning, such as constructivism, emphasize active questioning and cooperative group activities that keep students engaged with the material they are learning.

Constructivism (to be further defined later) casts students in an active role within the classroom.  Instead of just listening, reading and working through routine exercises, they discuss, debate, hypothesize, investigate, and take independent viewpoints.  Constructivist emphasize that knowledge and understanding are highly social.  We do not construct them individually; we co-construct them in dialogue with others. 

To promote effective student thinking, professors must stop being lecturers and become facilitators and mentors to learning.  They can no longer play the role of the one with all of the answers.  They must shift to being a facilitator who orchestrates the learning context, motivates students, provides resources, and poses questions to stimulate students into deriving their own conclusions

Proposing a New Model…

 The goal of this paper is to set the background such that the authors can propose an educational model that can be used as a foundation to educate, not train, the builder of tomorrow.  An education should not simply train students to become future practitioners, but educate students with the knowledge necessary to be successful in the industry.  Research has shown that it is not the technical skills that make a graduate succeed, but the higher order skills of critical thinking, communication, leadership, and people management (Mead 1999; Bowman, 2000). 

This paper reviews what industry experts believe to be the essential skills to be successful in the coming future, explores the best educational pedagogy for educating students with this knowledge, and then in a companion paper (also presented at this conference) derives a new model to structure a construction curriculum. The proposed model will equip students with these skills thru a synthesis of experience, theory, experimentation, and reflection, within a constructivist shell. 

Knowledge Assessment

Rapid changes in the construction industry are forcing construction educators to reevaluate the skills they are teaching students to be successful in tomorrow’s marketplace.  One of the objectives of this paper is to assess the skills, or knowledge, that entry-level builders will need to manage effectively in the next five to ten years and beyond.  These skills are ranked in terms of importance and are then used in a subsequent section found below and entitled ‘Traditional Vs. Constructivist Education’ as a foundation for developing a new curriculum to educate the builder of tomorrow. 

It should be noted that although skills and knowledge are used interchangeably in this context, the desired goal is for a student to have knowledge instead of a skill.  A student can be trained to accomplish certain tasks without understanding why they are doing what they are doing; but for a person to have knowledge about a subject implies a full understanding of that material.

The Future of the Industry

In order to develop successful graduates, it is essential to know what the climate of the building industry is going to be in the future.  What can the graduates of today’s construction programs expect to face in the future?  To understand the expected changes, we will compare (Figure 1) the industry environment for the twentieth century builder and the twenty-first century builder (Bowman 2000).

By looking at the changes in the industry as listed in Figure 1, there is a growing complexity that characterizes the builders of the future.  The physical boundaries of projects are continuously being expanded, while the complexity of projects calls for a conglomeration of various professionals.  Construction companies will not be limited by geographic boundaries as new technologies allow them to manage projects from great distances.  Specialization in building systems and components will demand more specialization in project participants.  This will result in a need for efficient interdisciplinary integration of professionals from various fields.  

The organization of these professionals is ever changing from project to project, with little of the traditional hierarchical orientation.  Leadership and management of the new matrix-style organization are crucial for completing successful projects.  The intricacy of designs has added another challenge to the builder of tomorrow.   Designs are not as dependent upon cost, becoming more driven by sustainability, efficiency, life cycle, and technology.  In order to serve the needs of clients, the builders of tomorrow are going to have to effectively manage these changes in the industry.  The builders must be predisposed to search for, and adopt beneficial change.

Survey of Skills Needed

A panel of thirty experts from the American Institute of Constructors (a construction professional organization) was surveyed to determine the skills necessary for tomorrow’s builders.  From this survey, it is obvious from the results that the “higher order skills” are viewed as being the most crucial for success in the industry.  There is strong evidence that the builder of tomorrow will need “people skills” more than any other skill in order to be successful.  They must be solid communicators who know how to read, write, and listen effectively.  There is an “increasing need for generalist managers who know technology and people” (Mead 1999).  The authors of the study found that construction educators will need to “develop new teaching strategies which refine our student’s people skills, foster their hands-on technical experience, and strengthen their computer literacy.” 

A roundtable discussion of the above mentioned expert panel developed a list of ten skills they foresaw as being essential knowledge in order to be successful.  Each panelist ranked these skills and then a master list was compiled from the results and is shown in Figure 2. (Mead, 1999).  

The following is adapted and then expanded from Mead (1999):

Communication Skills: Resolves divergent interests through negotiation.   Communicates effectively with others on the phone, in writing, and in person.  Works well with people from diverse backgrounds and in various fields of expertise.

Business Management Skills:  Sets achievable objectives and uses the tools, time, and resources required to meet those objectives.  Uses budgets, makes forecasts, keeps records, and evaluates performance.  Knows how to manage people. 

Leadership Skills:  Communicates ideas to justify a position.  Motivates, persuades and convinces others.  Responsibly challenges existing procedures and policies.  Can direct people to achieve set goals.

Technical Knowledge:  Understands how labor, material, and equipment are used to assemble construction projects.  Has an understanding of construction materials and processes.  Has a philosophical and holistic understanding of how buildings function structurally, mechanically, electrically, etc.

Field Experience:  Has experience in the field working on construction projects.  Has knowledge about the practice of the industry.

Planning and Scheduling:  Understands the sequence of construction operations.  Can develop a plan and produce schedules that help meet objectives.

Computer Skills:  Uses computers and related technologies efficiently.  Understands the overall intent and proper procedures for the operation of diverse electronic equipment.  Can problem solve and help manage projects and people using computer technology.  Stays up to date on new technology and is not afraid to utilize new technology to become more efficient.

Attitude/Eagerness:  Has a positive attitude.  Shows a willingness to learn and take on new responsibilities.  Works hard to meet personal and company objectives.

Estimating Skills:  Has an understanding of estimating procedures.  Can read plans and specifications, perform take-offs, and develop cost summaries.

Construction Law:  Understands construction contracts.  Has an understanding of lien law, bonding, insurance, and governmental regulations. 

Many of the experts on the panel felt strongly about the necessity of developing higher order skills.  The study concluded that communication, leadership, and management skills would be the pivotal skills required for the builder of tomorrow.  “Tomorrow’s marketplace will reward individuals who can manage people and paper, set and meet objectives, and lead their projects to success.”  As one of the panelists phrased it, “I don’t sell construction.  I sell people and communication.”  The study also recommends that construction curriculum develop specific courses which help strengthen people skills in undergraduates.  Role-playing, case studies, simulated meetings, presentations, and team projects can all expand leadership and people management skills.

Research supports the assumption that higher order skills of communication, management, and leadership will be essential for success in tomorrow’s workplace.  These skills are the top three on a list compiled by industry experts.  Technical skills and exposure to the professional practice are the next most important skills; however, they should not be the entire focus of a college curriculum.  For a construction curriculum to produce the best graduates, it must shift the focus towards a more holistic education that includes learning higher order skills.    

Traditional Vs. Constructivist Education

Given the above discussion of skills and knowledge the builder of tomorrow will need, we must find the best way to educate students with these skills and knowledge. What is the most effective way to learn higher order skills?  There are two main ideologies in education methods: 1.) The traditional environment, and 2.) The active (often termed constructivist) learning environment.

Traditional

 In the traditional educational paradigm, students are delivered information from the instructor and then are later assessed based on their retention of that information.  The traditional method is often termed “passive” because the transfer of information from teacher to student requires very little active involvement on behalf of the student.  There is typically very little interaction between students and even less between students and faculty. “In a traditional lecture/laboratory course of study the instructor is a source and delivery mechanism of factual knowledge and the student is a sink”(Buch 2000).  This type of lecture course is very typical at the university level, especially in large undergraduate courses.

Classes are usually driven by "teacher-talk" and depend heavily on textbooks for the structure of the course.  There is the idea that there is a fixed world of knowledge that the student must come to know.  Information is divided into parts and built into a whole concept.  Teachers serve as pipelines and seek to transfer their thoughts and meanings to the passive student.  There is little room for student-initiated questions, independent thought or interaction between students.  The goal of the learner is to regurgitate the accepted explanation or methodology delivered by the teacher.

Constructivism

In an active learning environment, a student cannot expect to come to class and have the material and concepts delivered to them.  Nor can they expect to simply follow a prescribed lab or experiment, where the steps are spelled out for them.  Constructivist teaching offers a bold departure from traditional passive classroom strategies.  The goal is for the learner to play an active role in assimilating knowledge onto his/her existing mental framework.  The ability of students to apply their school-learned knowledge to the real world is valued over memorizing bits and pieces of knowledge that may seem unrelated to them.  The balance of control must be shifted from the professor to the student.  The basic concept of constructivism is that knowledge cannot be truly acquired by a student who is learning is a passive mode.

A constructivist learning philosophy simply means that it is an active learning environment where students relate new information to already existing concepts or experiences to build overall their knowledge base.  Constructivism emphasizes the importance of the knowledge, beliefs, and skills an individual brings to the experience of learning. It recognizes the construction of new understanding as a combination of prior learning, new information, and readiness to learn. Individuals make choices about what new ideas to accept and how to fit them into their established views of the world (Caprio, 1994).

The role of the constructivist teacher (learning facilitator) is to organize information around conceptual clusters of problems, questions, and distinct situations in order to engage the student's interest.  Teachers assist the students in developing new insights and connecting them with their previous learning.  Ideas are presented holistically as broad concepts and then broken down into parts. The activities are student centered, and students are encouraged to ask their own questions, carry out their own experiments, make their own analogies and come to their own conclusions. The constructivist teacher sets up problems and monitors student exploration, guides the direction of student inquiry and promotes new patterns of thinking. Classes can take unexpected turns as students are given the autonomy to direct their own explorations.

In a Constructivist Classroom…

§         Student autonomy and initiative are accepted and encouraged. By respecting students' ideas and encouraging independent thinking, teachers help students attain their own intellectual identity. Students who frame questions and issues and then go about analyzing and answering their questions and consequently take responsibility for their own learning and become problem solvers.

§         The teacher asks open-ended questions and allows wait time for responses.  Reflective thought takes time and is often built on others' ideas and comments. The ways teachers ask questions and the ways students respond will structure the success of student inquiry.

§         Higher-level thinking is encouraged. The constructivist teacher challenges students to reach beyond the simple factual response. He encourages students to connect and summarize concepts by analyzing, predicting, justifying, and defending their ideas.

§         Students are engaged in dialogue with the teacher and with each other.

Social discourse helps students change or reinforce their ideas. If students have the chance to present what they think and hear others' ideas, students can build a personal knowledge base that they understand. Only when students feel comfortable enough to express their ideas will meaningful classroom dialogue occur. Case studies are an excellent way to get this discussion started.  Also it is important that faculty and students know each other by name.

§         Students are engaged in experiences that challenge hypotheses and encourage discussion.

When allowed to make predictions, students often generate varying hypotheses about natural phenomena. The constructivist teacher provides ample opportunities for students to test their hypotheses, especially through group discussion of concrete personal experiences.   This way each student can become at least for a short while teacher and mentor.

§         The class uses raw data, primary sources, physical, and interactive materials.

The constructivist approach involves students in real-world possibilities, and then helps them generate the abstractions that bind phenomena together.

Comparing Traditional and Constructivist

The following (Figure 3) is a comparative analysis of traditional and constructivist learning environments (Buch 2000): 

Traditional paradigm usually results in surface learning, while constructivism will lead to deep learning.  Surface learning is associated with a learner being able simply to reproduce the information as presented.  Deep learning is associated with not only acquiring the information but also understanding it through relating it to previous knowledge and experience.  To achieve deep learning requires an active involvement on the part of the student. (Angelo, 1991; Cross, 1976)

The traditional teaching method of teacher as sole information-giver to passive students appears outdated.  In a Berkeley study on undergraduates in a large lecture hall setting, it was found that only 20 % of the students retained what the instructor discussed after the lecture.  They were too busy taking notes to internalize the information.  Also, after the lecture had passed eight minutes, only 15 % of the students were paying attention.  The research supports the idea that students are not engaging the concepts being discussed in the traditional classroom environment.  (Angelo, 1991; Cross, 1976)

Furthermore, it is a growing belief that the present curricula in universities are overstuffed and undernourished (American, 1991).  They emphasize: the learning of answers more than the exploration of questions, memory at the expense of critical thought, bits and pieces of information instead of understanding in context, and recitation over discussion.  They fail to encourage students to work together, to share ideas and information freely with each other, or to use modern instruments to extend their intellectual capabilities.  The issue of fact learning rather than holistic understanding would lead to a very interesting debate on Standards of Learning Testing being adopted for many grade school, middle schools, high schools and now universities.  We cannot lose focus of the entire student learning process that includes facts but also requires understanding of the fundamental principals and philosophies of the subject matter.  This fundamental understanding will frame the student’s learning such that deep understanding can occur.

It is the conclusion of this paper that the way educators traditionally teach is not geared to the way students learn most effectively.  That is why a constructivist-learning environment will be adopted for the design philosophy of the new proposed educational model in this paper.  The structure, organization, and orientation in a constructivist “shell” will best foster the development of the higher order skills that is the focus of the proposed model.

Design of a Constructivist Model

- There are two reoccurring themes in the structure of classical constructivist models: a collaborative environment and a nonlinear pattern.  One of the principles of constructivism is that knowledge is built on introducing new information and comparing it to already existing concepts or beliefs.  This process cannot take place in a linear approach to learning.  A student must have the opportunity to reflect on ideas, derive new concepts, and then reevaluate their beliefs.  This process in best suited for a collaborative environment where different ideas and perspectives can be openly shared to increase the classroom’s collective body of knowledge.

There is also growing evidence that the first years of undergraduate study (particularly the freshman year) are the most critical for developing student success (Ewell 1996).  However, most colleges and universities heavily favor upperclassmen with faculty attention and resource allocation.  There is little effort to integrate first year students into mainstream activities within their major.  Interaction with faculty is minimal, with little opportunity for students to engage faculty in discussion and less opportunity for faculty to engage students.  Underclassmen often have to fulfill university requirements that place them in courses that are general in nature, and knowledge gained is rarely applied to real-world practice.  The classes typically emphasize the theory over practice and acquisition of facts over critical thinking.  If the first year of an undergraduate program is the most critical for developing skills in students, then the curriculum should be tailored to encourage the development of critical thinking skills from the start of a student’s academic career.  It certainly would be better to start even earlier during primary and secondary schools rather than waiting until college or university to start developing higher order skills such as critical thinking, communication, people management and leadership.

Technology in the Constructivist Model

The foundation of constructivist learning lies in the “experience” or “contextualization” of knowledge, the constructivist model (pedagogy) can be significantly aided through the use of computer technology.  Computer experiments, simulations, or virtual worlds can place the student in a variety of different contexts that can heighten experiential learning.  These worlds can integrate the complexity of real world problem solving, while allowing for the testing and application of the theory students learn in the classroom. 

Further, there is the potential of creating an electronic questioning system.  This system would have a series of well structure responses to student inquiry whereby only information that the student sought would be revealed or supported.  The student would have an interactive session with the system, ask questions and limited responses would be given based on the students thought and questioning process.   What is possible is something like an “Electronic Socrates”. (Chang, Kuo-En, 2000)

There have been radical advancement in the possibilities of educational software, but many of the instructional designs being proposed have severe shortcomings in their design structure.  High tech learning environments must adapt a constructivist framework to provide for effective learning.  The learner should be placed in an authentic environment that incorporates sophisticated representations of context through such constructs as “virtual worlds”.

“…. for the computer to bring about a revolution in higher education, its introduction must be accompanied by improvements in our understanding of learning and teaching.”

-Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon

However, in the design of a learning environment, it is essential to first develop the educational theory, and then create the multimedia or technology to support it.  A learning environment will be ineffective if it is based on the technology, and is lacking the educational philosophy to make it effective.  The theoretical foundations of interactive multimedia programs are frequently found to be based on the behavioral traditions inherited from educational technology and not on the learning process itself (Herrington 2000).

Conclusions

This paper provided the background for designing a new constructivist educational model.  There is much to be learned form the industry and from the present learning process.  It is hoped that a new educational model will better address the educational needs of our students and of the needs of the industry.  A second companion paper also presented at this conference presents some specific thoughts on constructivist education.

Abbott, John (1999). Constructing Knowledge, Reconstructing Schooling. Educational Leadership, v. 57, no. 3, 66-9.

Abudayyeh, Osama (2000). Construction Engineering and Management Undegraduate Education. Journal of Construction engineering and Management, vol. 126, no. 3, 169-75.

Adamic, Louis (1990). Excerpts from Black Mountain: An Experiment in Education. Black Mountain College, Sprouted Seeds.  University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville. 1990.

Albano, Leonard (1999). The Master Builder Program: An Integrative, Practice-Oriented Program. Journal of Professional Issues in engineering Education and Practice, vol. 125, no. 3, 112-18.

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Project 2061. (1990).  Science for All Americans New York:  Oxford University Press

Angelo, Thomas A., 1991, Classroom Research: Early Lessons and Success, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, Number 46, Summer, pp. 1-34.

Bowman, Bruce (2000). Embedding Leadership in Civil Engineering Education. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering education and Practice, vol. 126, no. 1, 16-20.

Buch, N.J. (2000). Classroom Teaching Through Inquiry. Journal of Professional Issues In engineering Education and Practice, v.126, no. 3, 105-109.

Caprio, M.W.  (1994).  Easing into constructivism, connecting meaningful learning with     student experience.  Journal of College Science Teaching, 23 (4), 210-212.

Chang, Kuo-En (2000). Socratic-Dialectic Learning System of Recursion Programming. Journal of Computing Research, v.23, no. 2, 133-50.

Chini, Abdol (1996). A Survey of What Construction Companies are Looking for From Recent Construction Graduates. Proceedings of the 1996 Southeast regional Meeting of the Associated Schools of Construction, Atlanta, Georgia, November, 1996.

Cross, K. Patricia, (1976),  Accent On Learning, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco.

Dorsey, R. W. (2000). Understanding Architects: A Contractor’s Guide to Architectural Practice.  Frank Messer and Sons: Cincinnati. 

Dorsey, R.W. (1992). Evaluation of College Curricula which Prepares Management Personnel for Construction. Halpern (p. 1) Report to the Construction Industry Institute.

Ewell, Peter (1996).  What Research Says About Improving Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, April 1996.

Fogarty, Robin (1999). Architects of the Intellect.  Educational Leadership, v. 57, no. 3, 76-8.

Forsberg, Kevin; Hal Mooz, Howard Cotterman; Visualizing Project Management; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1996, pp 249-250.

Halpern, Diane F. (1996). Using the Principles of Cognitive Psychology as a pedagogy for Higher Education, AAHE Summer Academy, Breckenridge, Colorado, July

Harper, Barry (2000). Constructivist Simulations: A New Design Paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, v.9, no.2, 115-30

Harper, Barry (2000, April). Who Benefits from Virtuality? Computers and Education, v. 34, no. 3-4, 163-76.

Herrington, Jan (2000). Moving From an Instructivist to a Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, v.9, no.3, 195-205.

Holzer, Siegfried (2001).  Conversations regarding active learning.

Krone, Jeffrey (1998). Curriculum Assessment in Construction Management Education. American Constructor, vol.58, 14-18.

Kyvan, Thomas (2001). The Pedagogy of Virtual Design Studios.  Automation in Construction, vol.10, 345-53.

Mead, Stephen (1999). Skills for the 21^st Century: What Constructors Need to Know. American Constructor, 8-11.

Meyer, Michael D. (2000). A Civil Engineering Curriculum for the Future: The Georgia Tech Case. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 126, no.2, 74-8.

Mokhtar, Ahmed (2000). Architectural Engineering Curriculum at Illinois Institute of Technology. Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 6, no. 3, 91-4.

Motamedi, Vahid (2000). Mastery Learning and Contemporary Issues in Education. Action in Teacher Education, v. 22, no. 1, 32-34.

Olsen, Dwayne G. (1999). Constructivist Principles of Learning and Teaching Methods. Education, v. 120, no. 2, 347-55. Chula Vista: California.

Packer, Martin (2000). Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology. Educational Psychologists, vol. 35, no. 4, 227-41.

Perkins, David N. (1999). The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Leadership, v. 57, no. 3, 6-11.

Rysavy, S. D. M., & Sales, G. C. (1991). Cooperative learning in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 70-79. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Setareh, Mehdi (2001). Development of Teaching Tools for Building Construction. Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, 6-12.

Songer, Anthony (2001).  Conversations regarding various topics.

Willis, Jerry (2000). The Mastering of Constructivist Instructional Design: Some Basic principles That Can Guide Practice. Educational Technology, v.40, 5-16.