Gladovic, C (2026) Hard hats, soft skills: A responsive scaffold model for construction management education. Construction Economics and Building, 26(1), ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This conceptual paper introduces the responsive scaffold model (RSM), a theoretically grounded pedagogical and assessment framework designed to enhance soft skills development in construction management education. Using theoretical synthesis methodology, RSM integrates scaffolding theory, cognitive apprenticeship, and experiential learning into a cohesive framework. The model's theoretical foundations are well-established in educational literature, with each component drawing upon substantial research evidence from related contexts. Although developed within Australian higher education, the paper illustrates RSM's broader applicability across disciplines and international contexts. The model's responsiveness ensures tailored support that adapts to learners' evolving abilities, systematically reducing cognitive overload whilst maintaining academic rigour. Comparisons with problem-based and simulation-based learning highlight RSM's distinctive approach to balancing structured guidance and learner autonomy. Implementation guidelines cover curriculum design, faculty development, and authentic assessment, demonstrating RSM's scalability in large classes and digital settings. By aligning with educational standards and industry expectations, RSM offers a sustainable, learner-centred approach that bridges theoretical knowledge and real-world practice, advancing construction management education to enhance graduate employability and professional readiness. Future research directions are outlined to guide empirical validation of this conceptual framework.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessment in higher education; authentic assessment; construction management education; responsive scaffold model; soft skills development |
| Index terms: | methodology, apprenticeship, evidence, validation, conceptual framework, experiential learning, graduate employability, construction management education, scaffolding, drawing, skills development, foundations, implementation, higher education |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, learning methods, educational institutions, education, professional development, personnel development, operations management, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods, professional education, theoretical framing, structural engineering, research methods |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Procurement, Education, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Human Resources, Design Practice, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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