The objective of this of this paper is to propose a new education model that will educate construction students with higher order skills within a constructivist shell. This is to be accomplished thru a synthesis of four modes of learning: experience, theory, experimentation, and reflection. Although each of these modes of learning is independently significant, it is through the joining of these modes that effective deep learning will occur.

Many people, whether they are in the academic or professional realm, can answer the questions posed by someone else. However, only a select few can see the world broadly enough to be able to formulate the questions. The challenge of creating a new education model is to educate people who can formulate the questions. Within this holistic perspective, a new educational model must also incorporate a technical foundation so that once a question is posed; options and processes to formulate a path to an answer (or multiple answers) can be put in place.

As the four modes of learning (experience, theory, experimentation, and reflection) are put into practice, the process of formulating the questions must be fully developed. We must build an educational model that prepares graduates to formulate the questions that are relevant and need answers. The process of inquiry should not be limited to questions on how to solve a particular problem.

In most construction curriculums it is common for courses to be divided and described as either practical or theoretical - involving doing or thinking (Figure 1). Learning takes place either "on the job" or in the classroom. Even in courses that contain both elements, they can be sharply divided. Theory is often presented in a lecture format, while an unrelated practical experience takes place in labs or "professional practice" classes. Where there is this separation, it is common for both types of courses to have limited success. The model presented in this paper is derived from a cycle that integrates both the practice and the theory.

There needs to be a balance between theory and practice in construction education. Too often the classroom is focused only on the theoretical aspects and "book-knowledge" while it neglects the application of concepts to the actual practice. Students solve static textbook problems instead of applying concepts to the context of real world scenarios. The problems in the actual practice are complex and multidimensional. Graduates who are educated by the traditional learning mechanism of solving textbook problems are typically untrained for the multifaceted challenges of the professional practice.

There is a potential for students to embrace the practice and not see the reason for theory. Comments such as "why do we have to learn this or that? I do not need it in the construction world" are common. There is an absolute necessity for constructors to have a broad based education such that they can prepare for and implement beneficial change. Without a sound overall education and with only practice, the student is often left with no idea of the future or the potential. Without the practice the student is left with irrelevant ideas. Given the need to include practice in an educational model, it is imperative that there is a futurist perspective to all experiments and some well defined academic goals for all experiences. Without this futurist perspective and academic goals, the student can become enamored with current practice and lose sight of the overall objective of being prepared to lead in the future.

In the constructivist philosophy, experience is essential to learning. However, one must do something with the experience to construct knowledge. The mere experience of an activity or event is not sufficient. A student must reflect on the actions taken, draw conclusions, and apply the ideas learned to develop an understanding of what happened and why. It isn’t sufficient just to have an experience in order to learn. Without reflecting upon this experience it will quickly be forgotten. It is from the thoughts and dialogue that emerges from reflection, that generalizations, concepts, and/or philosophical foundation can be generated. It is these ideas and concepts that enable new situations to be tackled effectively. Although students may acquire significant amounts of experience throughout their undergraduate education (i.e. internships, co-ops), there is little evidence that shows that these experiences are utilized, expanded, or discussed in the classroom.

Similarly, if the intention of learning is to improve behavior, then just learning new concepts and developing new generalizations is insufficient. This learning must be tested out in new situations; learning must be experimented with so that the learner can develop a full understanding and assess the validity of the concept. The learner must make the link between theory and action through planning for the action, carrying it out, reflecting upon it, and then relating what happens back to the theory. The theory must be applied to its actual context before true knowledge of a concept is gained.

Theory and experimentation can be aided by direct involvement of a learner in applying new knowledge in a meaningful manner. Deep learning requires a learner’s active engagement with new material. Active engagement has two bipolar facets: experimentation and reflection. If a balance between theory and practice is an aspiration of the new educational model, then experimentation and reflection are the mechanisms used to achieve equilibrium.

At the very core of the four modes of Learning is Communications. Communications has not been included as a specific need in any particular type of learning because it is the very core and absolutely necessary in all of the four modes of learning. Given a well-designed education model covering theory, experience, experiment, and reflection; communication is embodied in each and within the learning links across the four types of learning.

Below is a brief description of the four modes of learning and their interrelationship:

Theory involves interpreting the events/information that have been presented or noticed and understanding the relationships among them. It is at the understanding the relationship stage that theory is used as a template for framing and explaining events and speculation about the implications of ideas is derived. The areas of theory needed for the future builder are: 1. Technical foundations and concepts, 2. Design appreciation, 3. Production Planning and Process Design, and 4. Management.

Experience is the application of concepts to their context. Predictions about new understandings are translated into concrete experiences after experimentation. This mode is often referred to as the "practice" of knowledge. It is an exposure to the practical application of concepts to their actual context. Experience can be broken down into: 1. A philosophical view of the future, 2. Industry integration and participation, 3. Individual experience, 4. Shared experience, 5. Complexity, and 6. Simulations.

Experiment or immersing oneself in the "doing" of a task is the first stage in which the individual, team or organization simply carries out the task assigned. The person engaged is usually not reflecting on the task as this time, but carrying it out based on preconceived notions or concepts learned through theoretical conceptualization. Experimenting transforms theory into experience through abstracted representations. This overall process allows the individual to test theories or concepts learned; and also provides the opportunity for a student to engage in group interaction and leadership roles. Experimentation can be broken down into: 1. Teamwork, 2. Group process, 3. Leadership, 4. Abstracted Exploration.

Reflection involves stepping back from task involvement and reviewing what has been done and experienced. Reflection can either be internal or external, although external can be more effective because the individual learners are incorporating the experiences of others into their analysis. Dialogue and effective communication is essential in order to convey their ideas to others. Reflecting on experiences leads to new assumptions and ideas. The more often we reflect on an experience, the more often we have the opportunity to modify and refine our ideas. Reflection can be broken down into: 1. Philosophical foundation of theory, 2. Socratic Dialog, 3. and Debate.

As we look at the desired outcome for the overall learning cycle we should first look a bit at a critical issue in any education process – the ability to recognize and accept beneficial change. We need to spend much more time thinking/exploring "what it might be rather than what it is" in the educational process. Understanding what it is helps in the first job and there is value and a need for some of that. However, we must in any educational model have a process such that a healthy dose of questioning, inquiry, speculation, distrust, healthy skepticism all work to help look for what it might be. This will allow the student to look for new ideas and not be resistant to change. Any educational model must prepare the student with a predisposition to studying, reviewing, accepting, and implementing beneficial change.

The proposed educational model makes the assumption that learning is not a linear process. Knowledge is constructed in a cyclical process. At the core of the cycle are the four modes; each mode makes up one quadrant of the cycle. Under the 4 modes are the skills used or knowledge gained by utilizing the corresponding mode of learning (theory, experimentation, experience, reflection) inside the circle. This cycle is as much a psychological process of how we learn, as it is a template to be used to format an educational process to structure a curriculum. It describes the most effective way we learn psychologically and uses that as a means to design an actual educational process flow.

Knowledge is conceptualized, abstracted, and then interpreted and considered by the learner. The learner’s conceptions of this new knowledge then needs to be tested and applied in meaningful activities, which may lead to those beliefs being verified or contradicted. In either case, the outcome needs to be considered through internal or external dialogue, which in turn leads to the new knowledge either being integrated into existing beliefs or existing beliefs are altered to account for the new knowledge. If this process is successful, then not only has the learner acquired new material, but also the learner has done so in a meaningful manner. The learner is now ready to progress, to build upon what has been learned and to develop an even deeper level of understanding; the cycle starts again.

The cycle should be conceived as a spiral that evolves and extends over time. The logic of the cycle is to make many small and incremental improvements, which when done consistently, constitute major improvements over time. The more a student is able to take concepts and experiences and employ those insights to this learning cycle, the greater the chances for full understanding and deep learning. When this procedure is implemented as a habit or norm, continual improvement results. For example, if each day after classes or work you reflected on the days efforts and one small thing was identified to do differently to improve your performance, by the end of the year you would have hundreds of improvements. This may be a bit of an over-simplification; but if an organization had employees that followed this cycle routinely, consider the implications.

The goal of the new educational model is to provide opportunities for more of it graduates to move up the spiral rather than to stagnate and spiral down. Academia is far too comfortable producing trained individuals who do not have the critical thinking skills to lead, set vision, and see the future. The new educational model has as its primary goal to have a larger percentage of its graduates rise up the spiral rather than start up, stall and spiral down.

The ideal classroom would include each of the four modes as regularly and routinely as possible. For example, the cycle may begin with the student's personal involvement through concrete experience; next, the student reflects on this experience, looking for meaning; then the student applies this meaning to form a logical conclusion; finally, the student experiments with similar problems, which result in new concrete experiences; and then the learning cycle begins again. What is important is to systematically take the learner around each stage of the cycle, ensuring that effective links are made between each stage.

However, the synthesis of knowledge must not be limited by the boundaries of individual courses. Concepts must be transferred between classes and utilized at various stages within a student’s academic career. Knowledge constructed in certain courses should be tested and challenged in later classes. No ideas, whether put forth by teacher or student, should be taken for granted. Although it might be difficult to have the time and resources to incorporate all these modes into one college class, if most college classes could incorporate just a few of these elements, colleges would develop into more student-centered communities and would produce more competent and successful graduates.

Figure 3 – "Moving up the Learning Cycle" provides a look at the sliding bar for our learning cycle. A student who effectively moves up the spiral will move through various educational growth objectives. These growth objectives culminate in the critical thinker for the future of the building industry. The educational model provided for the student heavily influences where a student ends up on this learning cycle. However, students oftentimes place limits upon themselves and thus can thwart the overall learning cycle objective.

A graduate entering the industry will find a role within the building industry. Figure 4 – "Moving up the Practice Cycle" is the sliding bar of the practice cycle. A graduate must continue in the four types of learning throughout their career in order to move effectively up the practice cycle. Graduates who successfully spiral up will critically think, be change agents, see the future, and be in positions of leadership. Graduates who are not successful moving up the practice cycle will stagnate in a particular role or will eventually become obsolete and spiral down. The graduates who spiral down or stagnate early will be found in technician positions, they will accept the status quo, and they will be adverse to change. Figure 5 looks at the moving up bars of education and practice as the spindle for the wheel of learning.

Our educational goal with this overall educational model is to provide the maximum potential for a graduate to move up the practice cycle. However, there is no guarantee. It is only hoped that by having a well developed education model, that a larger percentage of graduates will find themselves moving up to their aspirations within the practice cycle.

If the proposed learning cycle is the process by which students will be educated, and then the constructivist philosophy is the foundation for the structure of the actual education environment. The "traditional" method of educating students, where students merely retain knowledge delivered to them through lecture, will not adequately support the proposed 4 mode learning cycle. This methodology concentrates too much on book theory, does not effectively incorporate the context, and does not allow for enough challenging experimentation or reflection. Figure 6 provides a comparison of the major concepts between a traditional and constructivist educational environments (Buch 2000).

Research has demonstrated (Mead, 99) that it is the higher order skills (critical thinking, communication, people management). We-the authors would include leadership as a higher order skill. These higher order skills will be essential for the builder of tomorrow to be successful in the industry. As research supports, a constructivist educational structure is the most effective method for teaching students these skills.

Reflecting on what we believe results from this paper, three guidelines that will dictate the formwork for the design of the educational environment emerge. These guidelines are recursion, reflection, and participatory; and these guidelines incorporate ideas from both the constructivist philosophy and the 4 mode learning cycle (See Figure 7).

Recursion- Recursion refers to the educational process as a non-linear design. Recursion is founded on the philosophy that knowledge is constructed with the influence of previous beliefs and experiences. The educational process is a cycle in which the more times a learner completes the cycle, the greater the understanding. The learning cycle proposed in this model revolves around four modes of learning: theory, experiment, experience, and reflection.

Reflection- Reflection assumes that many of the important problems in the professional practice cannot be well informed and solved with preformed solutions. The "real world" is complex in nature and presents a conglomeration of challenges that can’t be represented in classroom exercises. There is an art of problem framing, an art of implementation, and an art of improvisation. These art forms call for thoughtful and careful attention to, as well as understanding of, the context in which the professional work occurs. Reflection allows a learner to take tasks or activities and derive concepts and beliefs through reasoning. Dialogue is an essential tool to help express viewpoints. Through expression of ideas, students improve not only the classroom’s body of knowledge, but also their communication skills.

Participatory- Students of an educational curriculum must have a critical role in the learning process. Students are not mere recipients of the information, but active participants in constructing their knowledge. Teamwork and group oriented activities help cultivate "people skills" in students, as well as increase the overall body of knowledge in a classroom.

If these three guidelines are followed in the development of a construction program’s educational environment then the result should be deeper learning by the students. These guidelines will help nurture students’ communication and people skills, and result in better critical thinking capabilities.

A successful constructivist-learning environment will result in improved independent and critical thinking by all students. Success in a constructivist-learning model replicates success in a team environment. This success is fundamentally a function of how students listen to each other, support each other’s work, and rely on each other’s contributions.

Critical thinking is the ability to analyze arguments presented, make inferences, draw logical conclusions, and critically evaluate all relevant elements, as well as the possible consequences of each decision. Critical thinkers are constantly: analyzing new situations; searching for complexity and ambiguity; looking for and making connections among aspects of a situation; speculating; searching for evidence; seeking links between a particular situation and their prior knowledge and experience. When a student is presented with new information, they use their existing knowledge and previous experience to help them make sense of it. They will make inferences, elaborate on the new material by adding details and generate relationships between the new ideas and those already in memory. This is the process of critical thinking. The more a student can engage this process, the more they will develop this skill. Students need to be taught how to actively utilize this process in order to learn more effectively.

Well-developed critical thinking capabilities will increase the fluidity of the learning cycle. Also well-developed critical thinking will increase the depth and the pace of learning taking place. Critical thinking will allow a student to engage each learning mode more effectively and will encourage the learning cycle to be a continuous one.

The growing complexity of the building industry calls for new methods of educating construction students. Evolving project delivery methods and flattened matrix-style organizational structures are requiring building professionals to be equipped with enhanced critical thinking, communication, management, and leadership skills. The traditional paradigm of instruction is no longer a suitable fit for educating students. A new educational model (pedagogy) must be implemented to better foster the development of these skills.

An alternative is to change the focus of the classroom from a teacher dominated to a student-centered environment using a constructivist approach. The constructivist mentality realizes that information recall is not an effective method of education and suggests that knowledge should be constructed instead of reproduced. Students are much more successful at developing skills when they are required to actively demonstrate and exercise skills. Constructivism is active learning that requires students to demonstrate synthesis of knowledge.

The educational model presented in this paper utilizes a learning cycle with four modes of learning: theory, experimentation, experience, and reflection to effectively synthesize knowledge learned from various modes. If the constructivist shell is the educational structure, then the learning cycle is the educational process used to make the structure operate. The proposed model is a means for synthesizing knowledge of concepts and experiences. It tries to provide an appropriate balance between theory and practice, by utilizing experimentation of concepts and reflection of experiences.

It is essential that the curriculum actively integrate theory and practice. In the development of higher order skills, students must have the opportunity to apply what it learned to an authentic context. This is based on the notion that knowledge is context dependent and that a student will never develop a full understanding of material if the concept is not applied to its actual context. Such opportunities in a professional curriculum are abundant, but rarely ever utilized. These situations are where the greatest amount of deep learning occurs and where student interest is the highest.

Higher order skills are best developed in students when these skills are reinforced throughout the curriculum. The learning cycle must span across the traditional boundaries of sectionalized and segmented curricula. Courses should be structured in a way that allows a student to build upon previous experiences and exposure to concepts. Students will learn more effectively when they are required to synthesize concepts and skills learned in various classes or experiences. Synthesis of knowledge is enhanced with increased participation and collaboration. The learning cycle provides an excellent opportunity for a collaborative environment. In constructing their own knowledge, students use the ideas and experiences of other classmates to further challenge their own thinking.

Research has proven that students learning in a team effort will help them learn better than working individually. Well-organized teamwork increases students’ active involvement and provides multiple opportunities for feedback and assessment. Teamwork will not only help develop communication skills, but it prepares students for the way the world operates outside the academic arena. A collaborative education model will also help reinforce student to faculty interaction. The most successful collaborative environments are ones where the professor acts as coaches or mentors, instead of instructors, to help students achieve goals. Professors should inspire and motivate, and courses should be designed to facilitate extrapolation.

In order to operate successfully in the profession, graduates must be able to integrate, communicate, and regulate. The builder of tomorrow must be able to effectively integrate multidisciplinary teams in flattened organizational structures; communicate their goals and visions to project participants, as well as inspire and motivate; and regulate resources such as time, materials, costs, and people. The problems building professionals face in the "real world" are complex and multidimensional. The learning environment should provide multiple representations of reality, because multiple representations avoid oversimplification and represent the complexity of the real world. Textbook problems and prescribed labs are oftentimes too static and controlled to adequately represent the challenges a graduate will face in the working world. It is no longer sufficient to "train" students with technical knowledge. An education should not merely train students to be future practitioners, but cultivate successful professionals and leaders. To prepare graduates for the multifaceted challenges they will face in the profession, a construction curriculum must educate students to become better thinkers, better tem players, better leaders, and better communicators.

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

Abudayyeh, Osama (2000). Construction Engineering and Management Undergraduate 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.