Construction Research Congress 2007 Freeport, Bahamas
E10: WHY IS CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION SO BACKWARD? Thomas Mills1 and Yvan Beliveau2 ABSTRACT: Notwithstanding the professionalism and sincerity of construction educators, construction education is backward. In the opinions of the authors a large segment (as much as 80%) of most undergraduate construction curriculum is focused on the past, e.g., general education, means, methods, and materials, estimating, project delivery, control techniques, equipment, and project management, whereas this paper proposes that the majority of construction education should focus on the future. In defense of curriculum focus on the past, this paper acknowledges that construction is an experiential profession and addresses the concerns that surround the educational aspects of practiced learning. Accreditations and fragmented education processes are at the heart of backward education models. Learning concepts that would improve the view to the future would include, among others, value-based leadership, case-based problem solving, inservice learning, and open ended problems where students can provide innovative solutions. This position paper grapples with teaching the future forward. It provides focus areas for dialogue and discussion and doesn’t presume a know-it-all solution. The authors believe the academy must engage in broad debates that support efforts to prepare our students to understand the past, while engaging them to learn about the future. KEY WORDS: Construction Engineering Education, Accreditation, Future INTRODUCTION Construction education is backward - notwithstanding the professionalism and sincerity of construction educators. This paper will present some thoughts on the above statement. The solutions are elusive but a dialog should begin. The premise of construction and construction education being backwards is supported by Martin Pawley in his forward to “Why is Construction so Backward?” (Woudhuysen and Abley 2004). Construction education programs find themselves in a position of having to prepare their students to assume forward thinking positions within an industry that is extremely dynamic on a day to day basis yet remains little changed from its earliest origins. Therefore the purpose of this paper is to provoke debate and in that spirit will touch on widely held beliefs. It is hoped that sincere and passionate debate can be precipitated such that we can begin to look to the future. Construction is still predominantly a site-built, crafts-focused enterprise using skilled to unskilled trade contractors handling an ever increasing variety of materials. Residential construction has remained technically unchanged over the last 100 plus years yet continues to occupy large portions of contemporary construction curriculums much as does traditional contractor project management. As long as these backward approaches continue to be taught as contemporary practices the industry and the academy will remain backward. To argue that the past must be taught is to defer from the question of when will educators refrain from being overburdened by teaching the past and begin to focus on teaching the future. The authors opine that 80% of any undergraduate construction curriculum is focused on teaching the past, e.g., 1
Associate Professor, Department of Building Construction, Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 306 Kent Square, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0156 email:
[email protected] 2 Georgia Ann Snyder Falkingham Professor, Department of Building Construction, Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 308 Kent Square, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0156 email:
[email protected]
general education, means, methods, and materials, estimating, project delivery, control techniques, equipment, and project management – just the way grandpa always did it. This concentration on teaching to the past may not be far from Dorsey’s (1990) reported findings, that formal education provides only one-third of the skills/traits needed to perform in construction management positions, the other two–thirds being provided by on-the-job and specialized training (Robson and Bashford 1995). Thus formal education accounts for one-third and training two-thirds of a construction manager’s needed education. As a construction educator that one-third must be directed to the future. Academic content should be looking at issues in a broad context, aiming for resolve by quick analysis of multiple paths, and guidance on selecting paths where today’s tools provide better solutions for tomorrow. Much of current construction education is parceled out in discrete doses fondly referred to as courses; these are taken once and then many times forgotten or put on the shelf for later access by students when they need that information. This paper comes from a long held way of learning facilitation at Virginia Tech. This learning pedagogy is one where classical courses in estimating, scheduling, etc. are not used. Rather an integrative, learning environment is used where knowledge is acquired, tested, practiced, and built upon over a four year curriculum. This is not to say that Virginia Tech has reached the goal of teaching forward. Educational achievement or better yet the experiential verification of learning is only truly learned when discovered knowledge is refuted and then rediscovered in its new form. IN DEFENSE OF TEACHING THE PAST Construction is a practical, field intensive, experiential profession. How does one teach practices without concentrating on the past? In exploring why construction education is so backward the author’s are reminded of Pogo's insightful epithet, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." A founding tenet of a competent education demands a command of the fundamentals and without teaching fundamental knowledge (facts) the ability to make effective and informed decisions is diminished or denied. In effect construction educators must teach the facts about things and then assess the acquired knowledge of those things. Failure to do that basic task violates the principal value of providing a competent education to our students. Teaching the future is teaching about what will be and/or the ability to rapidly respond when things are discovered, not about things that have been and hold us hostage to change opportunities. To the contrary, some may say that the role of construction education is to train future industry personnel and prepare them for immediate entry into the profession of construction management. This is a very sensible bottom line. On one hand this is a short-sighted view of construction education; if we are interested in teaching to the future. While on the other hand the graduating of students without basic competencies is unacceptable and will result in a loss of industry and societal support. Jerald Rounds’ “Construction Education: On the Brink” chronicles the emergence of construction education, 1) from its 1940’s roots in agriculture and industrial arts, 2) to its movement into architecture, engineering, and business, 3) its growth as a distinct academic community with graduate education programs being developed through the 80’s and 90’s, and continues into 4) a discussion on competency based standards (CBS) in construction education
(Rounds 1992). Competency assessments are of great concern to academics and society alike in that the obligation and social contract to provide educational competency must be demonstrated as being fulfilled. One outcome of the concerns for meeting CBS in construction education is the growth and power of accreditation agencies such as the American Council of Construction Education (ACCE), ABET, and a movement toward a construction ‘standard of learning’ (SOL) formalized by the American Institute of Constructors (AIC) Constructor Certification Program (CPC). The author’s recognize the value of these efforts in support of academic competency, yet they maintain these efforts are restrictive to teaching to the future. How much of the past must be taught and to what extent should higher education be tasked with teaching current industry practices? This teaching model is really about training the individual student to understand the past and see how to apply this past to the future. The forward based learning model should be about educating the individual with a foundation that enables future projections that result when given opportunities arise thru time. If teaching the past is important, where are our construction history courses and how do they differ from architectural history courses? Are they product development courses or process based histories or do they exist as some combination of the two? Does construction education recognize a ‘theory of construction’ and if so is it taught as the past or the future? “The Emerging Construction Discipline” proposes that construction theory is or should be management theory and states that management theory is what should be taught (Robson and Bashford 1995). This refrain can be heard throughout the halls of academia, “We don’t teach construction, we teach project management,” albeit control management. The authors of this paper propose that a theory of construction is far greater than management theory and may be closer to ‘uncertainty theory.’ If this is the case, construction educators may wish to direct their teaching efforts and curriculum development more on how to innovate, model, and optimize decisions within uncertain environments than on a traditional project management practices approaches. Thus in order to teach the future, construction educators must leave the past. IN SUPPORT OF TEACHING THE FUTURE A prior work by Beliveau and Peter’s (2002 a) “Education for the Builders of Tomorrow – Can We Do it Better?” provides a view of what we might do to teach the future. It is worth reiterating from “Black Mountain: An Experiment in Education” (Adamic 1990): “…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…” The Black Mountain excerpt clearly articulates the typical university approach of lecture/lab activities that focuses on current (past) practices. Beliveau and Peter (2002 a)
continue making the case that construction education must teach “future skills” of critical thinking, communication, people management, and leadership. Rounds (1992) echoes this earlier in his insistence that creative thinking, global awareness, critical analysis, communication, and most important of all, how to learn are the necessary teaching focuses to prevent construction students from being stranded in the past. Andersen and Andersen (1993) express this concern by exploring situational leadership designed to improve people and communication skills in their belief that these directly effect productivity improvements. Roberson and Bashford (1995) promote the teaching of management as a means of focusing toward the future for a meaningful academic discipline. Prior attempts at forward teaching/learning through project and/or practice based experiments within a creative and integrative learning experience have been and are continuing. (Beliveau 2003; Chinowsky et al. 2006; Hauck and Jackson 2005). The teaching facilitation processes presented in these papers proposes to allow students, through a project-based approach, to discover that most problems do not have single solutions, but instead many possibilities, some being more applicable and creative than others. More dialogue within construction education programs and departments would be helpful and could guide the academy to find imaginative ways to teach forward. Ernest L. Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered” defines the mission of higher education as effectively too narrow due to its emphasis on research. Boyer argues that higher education’s four components are; (1) discovery - creating new knowledge, (2) integration - synthesizing and interpreting knowledge, (3) application - applying and disseminating knowledge, and (4) teaching - educating and enticing future scholars, and that a faculty’s career focus should not be research (Mouton and Killingsworth Jr 1995). Faculty research capability and desire is an all important criteria in selection of new faculty positions at many Research I institutions. This intense demand for academic research faculty that is beginning to dominate construction education may be a regressive approach toward creating any new models for teaching the future as less time becomes available to teach forward. However, by integrating an appropriate scholarly research agenda, faculties stay current and are better able to look toward the future. Academic research is indeed a two edged sword. Research should be embraced in the construction academy; however, a practice based discipline cannot be forgotten as long as it’s not limited to the past, but looks to the future. Russell Edgerton’s "The Re-examination of Faculty Priorities," as intimated by Mouton and Killingsworth, (1995) builds upon Boyer’s philosophy and recommends that teaching techniques shift their emphasis from teaching about things to teaching how to do things and how to integrate and apply knowledge. This is apparent in the recently developed engineering education (including construction engineering) body of knowledge (BOK) that subscribes to the philosophy that students, with guidance by faculty, are responsible for their own education (American Society of Civil Engineers 2004). To provide real education, the student must be fully engaged; education is a full contact sport. This notion of student engagement is well matched by a constructivist educational model that reinforces students learning forward through engaging in synergistic modes of: experience, theory, experimentation, and reflection (Beliveau and Peter 2002 b). This reinforces the paradigm shift away from faculty-centric education toward studentcentric educators much as Bernold argues (Bernold 2005; Bernold 2007).
WHY IS CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION SO BACKWARD? Construction education is backward because it lacks real innovation in educational models. The following are a set of thoughts deeply believed by the authors. These set of thoughts need to become a continuing dialog in the academy. The Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) and the ‘construction’ section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) offer excellent forums for this dialog. However, no dialog will occur if the issues presented below are not considered an opportunity for understanding and change; rather than intransient fact that must be deified. Accreditations Construction education is backward because its accreditation models, ACCE and the revised ABET are still prescriptive based models. Without question the ACCE accreditation has a prescriptive perspective as it focuses on courses that meet a checkbox function, be it estimating, scheduling, means and methods, or safety, etc. Once the checkbox exists it becomes hard to change. ABET has approached accreditation with a more performance based approach yet it still remains an A-K prescriptive format. In fact the checkbox philosophy of accreditation ensures that we will stay exactly where we are today. How can accreditation consider a better way to adapt to change? This is certainly a question for debate in the academy. Academic Focus on Construction Management Competitions Academic emphasis on various construction management competitions reinforces a mindset that current practices involving accomplishment in estimating, scheduling, and cash flow are crowning achievements in student academic accomplishment. These competitions in fact replicate the past and reward an understanding of this keenness to the past. Further, these competitions while good at developing organizing and presentation skills, poise, aplomb, etc., do little toward considering a future focus. Finally, construction competitions have become a part of the construction education curriculum for many colleges and universities. This is fundamentally wrong, as all students involved in our curriculums, must be given an educational model within the curriculum, not outside this model. Construction competitions are good, but should not replace or significantly augment curriculum. There should be opportunities for exploration and individual growth and for testing new ways of doing something, rather than looking at yesterday’s most correct solution. Innovation should be promoted and rewarded not be a cause for demerits. Research Focus by Faculty Research is the creator and definer of emerging knowledge, yet it cannot be performed in exclusion of the larger body of construction education, the undergraduate. There are countless advocates for graduate education as the forward based savior in advancing knowledge beyond yesterday’s practices. One only need look at the graduate programs current and past. Within the engineering education domain, few survive that do not have an undergraduate base. Other programs advocate a graduate education program with too few credit hours to truly provide much other than backward looking fundamentals. Regarding graduate education for undergraduates there is still a bit too much belief by industry and students alike that, as Halpin (2003) relates, undergraduates will receive their graduate education on the job. Graduate education should focus on making a profound change to the individual’s intellectual growth and the growth of new
potential for the construction industry. Teaching what is – is somewhat important; however teaching what ‘might be’ is the true essence of educating. Practice Based Professional Education (Training versus education) One concern that contributes to construction education backwardness is the current need and depth of practice fundamentals. Goodman and Chinowsky (1997) are quite right in their comment that industry needs a steady supply of skilled project managers and effective decision makers, yet if taken to heart the academy becomes too focused on providing fundamentals. This is evidenced by much of the movement to project-based practice focused scenarios, construction management competitions, and simulated capstone projects that involve traditional estimating, bidding, and project scheduling. However, when practices’ teaching becomes the desirable model for construction education the model shifts from education to training and thus teaches to the past. The Constructor Certification Program (CPC) Several universities now require their students to take this examination as a requirement for graduation. It is uncertain to the author’s if failing the exam results in the denial of a degree. In 2000 the AGC of America announced an official partnering agreement to work with AIC in promoting of AIC/CPC certification (American Institute of Constructors 2000). Although this is an admirable industry endorsement there are no requirements at the professional level that this examination be administered nor passed as a prerequisite to licensure (Mills 2000). In fact, unless one knows to specifically ‘search’ for the AIC/AGC partnering agreement or CPC, a visit to the AGC website provides nothing to support the promotion of professional certification. In light of industry’s apparent disinterest in the professional Certification Program, the author’s question just how valued is the CPC program. Maybe is should not be valued. The authors propose that the AIC/CPC is a further deterrent to teaching to the future. Fact and practice based testing is at the very heart of keeping construction educational the way it is – keeping it aimed backward or at the very best in maintaining the status quo. Nationally Fragmented Construction Education Programs Ogelsby (1990) and Chinowsky (2003) discuss a myriad of approaches to construction education, including the CEM and CM approaches. This coupled with the fracturing of graduate programs unsupported by an undergraduate construction degree program, distinct from engineering, leads to an overall weakening of the academic institution’s construction education identity and strength. A graduate program without an undergraduate base is doomed to failure. Chinowsky (2003) has developed a heritage tree that is devoid of the ASC fruits that fall from the Big 5, while Schexnayder and Badger (2003) reference the ASC Big 6 exclusive of the CEM Big 5. Without internal cross-college solidarity of CEM and CM departments and an institutional strengthening of undergraduate construction education programs as the foundation to successful graduate construction education the reduction in construction education particularly the lose of CEM programs much as Chinowsky alludes (2003) will continue. The exclusionary fragmentation of construction programs will continue to create backward educational modes hindering the future advancement of construction education. There are other areas that also contribute to the backwardness of construction education that require more time and space than allowed. Among these are:
• • • •
career focused graduate programs, poor or non-existent linkages to community college supply chains, university liberal education core curriculums, the lack of a professional in-service educational focus.
WHAT SHOULD TEACHING FORWARD LOOKS LIKE If construction education is backward, what does it take to move it forward? What are the core concepts that must be reinforced and occupy the 80% of the curriculum we threw out in relegating the past to construction history. The authors propose several areas of forward teaching. It should go without saying that, “… constructors must have grounding in technical knowledge, but they must also be given leadership experiences during their education process, they must learn to communicate effectively in both the oral and written medium, and they must upon entering the profession be comfortable working within a team environment (Schexnayder and Badger 2003). In the context of breaking new ground that moves construction education forward in new frontiers that are cross pollinating with each other and steer far from the compartmentalization of many construction education programs the authors briefly propose several teaching forward based content areas and several forward-based how-to areas. •
•
•
•
Value-based leadership (VBL): In contrast to leading by authority, or leading by task management, cost, or schedule drivers, VBL is leadership through an articulation of values that are reflective of the organizations and the projects they participate in or represent. This is not moral high-ground but effective and dynamic principles that are articulated and continually spoken true. Educating for this perspective is also integrative across other educational domains in that straight-speaking leadership becomes the model for moving issues forward. Teaming without therapy: This classical ‘I’m OK, you’re OK’ philosophy must shift. Faculty and students alike become enmeshed in the traditional therapeutic aspects of working together. The working model becomes one of not being critical of each other in the interest of having harmony and little recognition of performance failures. In this manner it voids issues of accountability. This applies within peer-evaluations of student team as well as teaching evaluations due to poorly understood definitions and declarations of performance effectiveness. Bernold (2007) makes a strong case that to shift from the traditional facultylectured centric education model to a student-centric inquiry model is a risk, particularly to new faculty, due to incorrectly focused teaching evaluations and their assessment objectives. Teamwork and accountability is required and should be reinforced throughout the discipline at both faculty and student levels. There may be an opportunity for team-based education to be less about team project objectives and more about team dynamics and student driven team management. Regardless a process needs to be engaged that gives student led teams power to demand student accountability. Sustainability without naturalism: Growth will occur that is a given. At issue is how to incorporate sustainability without a no-change policy. Let’s teach growth as the desired achievement and the approach of being innovative in achieving sustainability with new and emerging technological solutions. The human sprit is unconquerable. To teach a ‘we can’t do it’ approach and that we must stop growth is counter-productive to teaching forward. Innovation without constraint: The teaching forward domain is the antithesis to teaching ‘control theory.’ Control theory is simply teaching current practices and occasional new
•
monitoring techniques on how to prevent change. The academy becomes unbalanced in its efforts to teach innovation (change) when there is such an extensive emphasis on teaching control (stability) via the educational emphasis on teaching current practices and project controls. Current practices and project controls may be best left to pre-employment internships or post academic in-service educational programs. Knowledge creation: The author’s have one word to describe this teaching forward fundamental ‘passion.’ Explore a curriculum that allows self driven passion toward life long learning, a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach that engages students in determining their own educational outcomes, in effect they pump their own gas and go in their own guided direction. Myopic students are undesirable, but the instillation of a passion for life-long learning becomes overpowering and multi- dimensional if properly focused and guided even if it initiates on a single scholarly inquiry. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” The authors believe that stimulating the imagination creates and instills a focus for lifelong learning. Thus a teaching forward strategy is to teach imagination.
As these teaching/learning domains crystallize it becomes apparent that they all interlink as an integrated whole. Teaching forward is a dynamic method that is organic in nature and continually crosses over and links unto itself. If teaching forward were to be cast as a studentcentric curriculum with faculty guidance it might be structured similar to Table 1. Table 1 - Forward teaching domains and techniques Inquiry areas • • • • • • •
Value based leadership Teambuilding Sustainability Innovation Knowledge creation Global awareness Construction education
Teaching methods • • • • • • •
Case-based critical problem solving Student-centric group therapy In-service learning Experiential learning Self directed student inquiry Learning communities Institutional streaming
There is insufficient space to individually explore each component and/or method in detail but for example case-based critical problem solving has the opportunity to incorporate issues and components that allows students to creatively address and solve problems through a self-directed reinterpretation of the decision variables. This crosses over into other inquiry areas such as value-based leadership, innovation, knowledge creation, etc. WHAT CAN BE DONE TO TEACH FORWARD This is not a question, this is a statement. Supporting the premise that imagination is more important than knowledge, and that knowledge is typically a resultant translation of the past, forward-based teaching/learning is about self-discovery, implication exploration, and lifelong learning. The authors opinions do not always coincide but they are always sharpened and supportive with an eye toward teaching the future. One teaching forward curriculum might propose to use the university’s core curriculum or general liberal education requirements to forward a student during there first academic year. The second year may be construction as a romance history course that transforms today’s practices into yesterday history while stimulating
the vision for tomorrow. The third year teaches nothing of current practices but only cutting edge knowledge development. The final year becomes a student facilitated teaching/learning experience aimed at resolving leadership through uncertainty as a counter to control theory possibly utilizing ‘games builder’s play,’ e.g., zero-sum games and/or the prisoner’s dilemma, etc. in a context of self-discovery focused on defining and pondering the uncertainty of construction as something other than yesterday’s practices. Although the authors do not endorse the following, one solution may be Oglesby’s (1990) proposal to the lengthen a 4-year undergraduate degree to a 5th year graduate equivalent that results in a Master’s degree,. Another option could be the incorporation of an additional inservice year similar to the medical profession (an extension of the external constructor’s intraining strategy), or the use of in-resident internships, and/or service-learning mechanisms that grow the demands and needs for future knowledge within the 4-year academic window. There are many more strategies, both content and structural yet to be discussed and discovered. The author’s are grappling with teaching the future as a teaching forward mechanism. At some point a common terminology of forward teaching may emerge and this paper is but one focus on many that quietly, almost silently, call for leaving the academic past to engage in the academic future. In closing the authors leave you with this thought, modify or throw out 70% of your current curriculum and as a matter of survival, challenge yourself to build a forwardfocused curriculum that provides an opportunity for you and others to teach to the future. REFERENCES Adamic, L. (1990). " Excerpts from Black Mountain: An Experiment in Education." Black Mountain College, Sprouted Seeds. University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville. American Institute of Constructors. (2000). " AIC AGC Partnering Agreement. URL http://www.aicnet.org/affiliations/index.asp, viewed January 10, 2006." American Society of Civil Engineers, A. (2004). "Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future." Body of Knowledge Committee of the Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers. Andersen, N. J., and Andersen, K. A. (1993). "Integrating the Concerns Based Adoption Mode with Situational Leadership." In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference, Fort Collins, CO, 89-94. Beliveau, Y. J. (2003). "Teaching Construction." In: Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives - Proceedings of the Congress, R. M. Keith and S. C. Paul, eds., ASCE, 52. Beliveau, Y. J., and Peter, D. (2002 a). "Education for the Builders of Tomorrow – Can We Do it Better?" In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference, Blacksburg, VA, 135-145.
Beliveau, Y. J., and Peter, D. (2002 b). "Educating the Builder of Tomorrow - A Constructivist Educational Model." In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference Blacksburg, VA, 221-230. Bernold, L. E. (2005). "Paradigm shift in construction education is vital for the future of our profession." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(5), 533-539. Bernold, L. E. (2007). "Teaching Evaluations for Construction Engineering and Management: Opportunity to Move Us Forward." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(2), 146-156. Chinowsky, P. S. (2003). "CEM Educators: History And Misplaced Community." In: Construction Research Congress, Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, HI, 447-455. Chinowsky, P. S., Brown, H., Szajnman, A., and Realph, A. (2006). "Developing knowledge landscapes through project-based learning." Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(2), 118-124. Goodman, R. E., and Chinowsky, P. S. (1997). "Preparing construction professionals for executive decision making." Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(6), 55-61. Halpin, D. W. (2003). "CEM Graduate Education --- Pros and Cons." In: Construction Research Congress, Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Congress, R. M. Keith and S. C. Paul, eds., American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, HI, 55. Hauck, A. J., and Jackson, B. J. (2005). "Design and Implementation of an Integrated Construction Management Curriculum." In: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference, , Cincinnati, OH. Mills, T. (2000). "Professionalism in Construction Education." In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference West Lafayette, IN, 15-20. Mouton, J., and Killingsworth Jr, R. A. (1995). "Shifting the Paradigm of Higher Education " In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference, Tempe, AZ, 45-50. Oglesby, C. H. (1990). "Dilemmas facing construction education and research in 1990s." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(1), 4-17. Robson, K. F., and Bashford, H. H. (1995). "The Emerging Construction Discipline " In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Associated Schools of Construction Conference, Tempe, AZ, 171-180. Rounds, J. (1992). "Construction education: On the brink." In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Associated Schools of Construction, 145-150.
Schexnayder, C. J., and Badger, W. W. (2003). "Full Circle in Construction Education?" In: Construction Research Congress, Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Congress, American Society of Civil Engineers, Honolulu, HI., United States, 513-520. Woudhuysen, J., and Abley, I. (2004). Why is construction so backward?, Wiley-Academy, Chichester.
