Development of Construction Education Model

Phenomenographic research has revealed several concepts of learning (Säljo 1979; Giorgi 1986; Marton et al. 1993), including increasing, memorizing, applying, understanding, interpreting and changing. Specific learning attitudes can assist educators in preparing appropriate teaching methods for their students. In turn, these attitudes can support students in studying for professional programs in university, understanding professional knowledge, carrying out tasks in the industry with competence, and promoting themselves to be professionals in the construction industry. For the teaching and learning processes, various models have been proposed in general education, e.g., a learning-in-context model (Ramsdsen 1992); a model of teaching in higher education (Ramsdsen 1992); a 3-P model of teaching and learning (Biggs 1978, 1992); and a framework for the concepts of teaching (Lingbiao and Watkins 2001). Biggs’ 3-P model covers the learning and the teaching elements in the Presage–Process–Product process, but it mainly concentrates on the inter-relationships between the teaching and learning elements in the school/university for general education and does not touch upon the needs of employers in society/industry.

Stemming from systems theory (Checkland 1996), psychological value (Kluckhohn 1959; Feather 1979), organizational behavior (Locke and Latham 1990) and value management cyclical process (Leung and Liu 1998; Liu and Leung 2002), a cyclical Construction Education model has been established (see Figure 1). Learning in construction education cannot be isolated from a task, a person and an environment (Logan and Gordon 1981). To achieve a desired educational performance, it is necessary to ensure that (1) the curriculum objectives achieve the expectations of practical professionals in the industry, (2) the educators understand students’ learning styles and, simultaneously, (3) they use appropriate teaching styles for construction education.

Learning value influences action by the strength of motivation (success achievement /failure avoidance), while the setting of learning goals initiates required actions to achieve the learning outcome. The learning goal (strategy) is affected by the learning value (motive) and, simultaneously, influences the learning behavior and the learning outcome. Hence, a Value(motive)–Goal(strategy)–Outcome(grade/satisfaction) Model for teaching and learning in construction education is proposed in Figure 3.

In higher education, educators assist students to learn within a specific curriculum, such as architecture, structural engineering, surveying or construction management. Students’ learning behaviors are affected by the course content, the teaching style (educator), the learning motive and the learning strategy (students) which, subsequently, affect their academic outcomes /work performance. Affective feedback (satisfaction) influences the learning style of the student, while the work performance of graduates provides alternative feedback to practitioners in the industry. This model extends Biggs’ 3-P model, incorporating the needs of professionals and the performance of graduates in the industry, and illustrates the psychological learning process by way of Value–Goal–Outcome processes.

The study uses data from supervisory quantity surveyors in the construction industry and finds that traditional cost management, procurement management and contract law are identified as the essential knowledge for quantity surveying education of the new generation (Leung et al. 2002). Both computation skills and team working skills are considered to be strong skills in quantity surveying graduates. However, taking-off skills, negotiation skills, professional practice knowledge, analytical skills and communication skills are classified by the supervisory group as essential and, simultaneously, the weak knowledge areas and skills of quantity surveying graduates (Leung et al. 2004; Leung 2002).

Since the learning strategy (task goal) is affected by both the learning motive of the student (person) and learning circumstance (environment), a matrix profile of learning styles based on the inter-relationships amongst three learning motives and three learning strategies is established in Table 2. The matrix relationships amongst the learning motives and learning strategies reflects something about the teaching/learning environment, because students’ predilections tend to change (or students adapt to the expected requirement) when they are faced with a particular kind of teaching environment. For instance, students sometimes spend extra time/effort on a subject to learn more knowledge than necessary, because they are encouraged by teachers or fellow students in the learning processes (i.e. Encouragement Approach, refer to Table 2).

Table 2       A Matrix Profile of Learning Styles (Leung , Ng and Li 2004)

In the study, learning styles include nine types (surface, deep, achieve, encouragement, discouragement, avoid failure, achieve success, fear of failure and hardworking) (Leung, Ng and Li 2004) instead of the traditional three/six approaches (Biggs 1987, 1992). Based on this matrix profile, a pioneering study has been further developed in HK. The preliminary results indicate that construction students in different universities in HK apply different learning phenomena (e.g. encouragement and achieve success approach for the Construction Engineering and Management students at the CityU). This illustrates that various teaching styles/methods are required for different universities (e.g., competitive challenge and metacognitive learning skills for the CEM students at the CityU).

Surface motive and surface strategy (i.e. surface learning style) are the most popular learning motive and learning strategy of construction students in HK (Leung, Ng and Li 2003), while transferring and shaping approaches are common teaching styles adopted in the territory (Leung, Lu, Li and Lu 2003). To improve the learning styles of students in the universities, teachers should provide appropriate feedback to the students in the learning process. Good teaching, openness and clear variables are concluded to be the major elements influencing the satisfaction level of students through the feedback process (Leung, Leung, Ho and Lu 2003).

In contrast, deep motive and deep strategy are the most popular learning motive and learning strategy of construction students in Mainland China, while transferring and shaping approaches were found to be popular teaching styles used on the mainland (Leung, Lu, Li and Lu 2003; Li, Leung and Fong 2003, 2004). The teacher-focused teaching approach (shaping) is related to deep learning styles for students on the mainland, while it is correlated to surface learning styles for Hong Kong students. Problem-based /case-based teaching methods, systematic education training and appraisal are recommended for the construction education in Mainland China.