Hill, C (2009) Re-evaluating the placement experience of built environment undergraduates. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
Considerable experience with undergraduate built environment placements has led to the development of assessment using appropriate professional competencies as a guideline. Students are able to reflect on their experience through the identification of those competencies which most closely match their experience. Students then create a portfolio of experience explicitly claiming development in identified competencies, supported by evidence from their workplace. The experience itself is also disseminated through seminars given as part of the briefing process for second year students, and interviews with academic staff. These seminars and interviews revealed that the students often considered the development of 'soft skills', such as maturity, confidence, and making contacts, as being at least as important as the development of the professionally identified competencies. Although this revelation may simply confirm a long -, and widely - held view, it does shed light on the process of placement and placement reflection, and should not be overlooked.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; placement; soft-skills |
| Index terms: | placement, built environment, briefing, undergraduate, interview, reflection, evidence |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, curriculum development, scope management, infrastructure and transport systems, management, professional development, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Information Management, Human Resources, Project Management, Research Practice, Education, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here