Developing a model promotingsustainability literacy throughconstruction curriculum design

Alison J. Cotgrave and Noora KokkarinenLiverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to describe the research and process used to develop a curriculumdesign guidance model that can be used to develop a sustainability literate construction curriculum inhigher education.

Design/methodology/approach – A comparative study between the UK and Australia wasundertaken. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected in both countries and then analysed todetermine what was needed to develop an appropriate model for curriculum design withinconstruction education. Various areas regarding curriculum assessment were considered in order toprovide an insightful and comprehensive model for curriculum design.

Findings – The results indicated that the UK and Australia do not differ significantly with regards tobest practice in curriculum design.

Research limitations/implications – The subsequent model can be used by academics tointegrate more opportunities for sustainable literacy into construction courses. The proposed modelhas the potential to be used interchangeably within both countries and possibly beyond.

Originality/value – The paper addresses the need for academia to assess the level of environmentalknowledge that they disseminate to students as an integrated part of their overall degree rather than ata modular level.

Keywords Sustainable development, Curriculum development, Higher education, United Kingdom,Australia

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionConstruction work and buildings have a major impact on the environment through sitemodification and the majority contribution to energy use worldwide. Therefore, ifchanges are made to construction processes and the design of buildings, the potential forslowing down environmental degradation could be significant. There are a significantnumber of academics who believe that the education of undergraduate constructionstudents who will be the construction professionals of the future, is the key to makingthe changes required to industry practices to improve environmental performance.

There is an ongoing commitment from the UK Government to promote education forsustainability via various departmental strategies. This commitment is emphasised inthe UK’s official sustainable development strategy, which asks educators “to makesustainability literacy a core competency for professional graduates” (HM Government,2005, p. 39). Independent bodies like the forum for the future have the role of providingbadly needed support and guidance to academics wishing to respond to this agenda(Murray and Cotgrave, 2007).

However, McKeown-Ice and Dendinger (2000) have identified the fact that scientificknowledge and political intervention will not solve the environmental problem on

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

SS28,4

266

Structural SurveyVol. 28 No. 4, 2010pp. 266-280q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-080XDOI 10.1108/02630801011070975

their own, thus implying that something additional is required to change behaviour.Behaviour changes can only occur if attitudes change and this can be achievedthrough education, and as Fien (1997) identifies, environmental education can play akey role by creating awareness, and changing people’s values, skills and behaviour.

The enormity of the impact of building work and property, plus the outcomes of areview of the construction management undergraduate programme at LiverpoolJohn Moores University identified the need for this research. The review illustrated adeficit in student knowledge and understanding of environmental issues in a builtenvironment context. More worryingly than lack of knowledge was students’ attitude tothe environment as evidenced in final year presentations. The prevailing views were that“the sustainability bit is just flavour of the month and is just something extra that weneed to do”, and “there’s not really a problem so why do we need to do something about it”.Therefore, the curriculum model needed to focus on more than just increasing knowledge.

This paper describes the research work and process used to develop a curriculumdesign guidance model that can be used to develop the construction higher education(HE) curriculum. The aim of implementation of the model in the design of thecurriculum is to improve the knowledge of students with regard to environmentalissues, and more importantly to change attitudes. The findings of the primary datacollection, which will be discussed later in the paper, were used as the basis for thedevelopment of a model that could be used to inform curriculum design to enhance theliteracy in sustainability of construction management students. The pedagogicalresearch undertaken to gather data in order to develop this model involved anextensive literature review and the gathering of data from UK universities and the UKconstruction industry. Additionally, data were gathered from Australian universitiesin an attempt to identify aspects of good practice in curriculum design to promoteliteracy in sustainability. The primary objective for the development of this model,which was used to integrate specific initiatives into the curriculum, was to changeattitudes in current students that would hopefully lead to improved behaviour,demonstrated by differences in decisions made, by graduates of these programmes.

Defining environmental educationInitially, an understanding of the term environmental education is required. Huckle(1993) defined environmental education by three approaches:

(1) Education for environmental management and control – which predominantlyserves the human technical interest, is based upon the empirical-analyticalscience, and coheres most closely with the notion of education about theenvironment.

(2) Education for environmental awareness and interpretation, whichpredominantly serves the practical human interest, is based upon interpretivescience, and coheres most closely with the notion of education through theenvironment.

(3) Education for sustainability, which predominantly serves the critical humaninterest, is based upon critical science, and coheres most closely with the notionof education for the environment.

Huckle (1993) believes there is an overwhelming bias towards approach (1) and thatthis is a wrong approach as material is generally delivered in a didactic mode

Promotingsustainability

literacy

267

and is delivered in one subject. He believes that sustainability should be the coretheme that runs through the curriculum if approach (3) is to be achieved, which in hisopinion would be the most effective. In his definitions of environmental education he isdetermining the importance of the teacher in achieving environmental awareness, andthis importance is reiterated by Brundtland (1991) who believes that teachers play a veryimportant role in the transition between generations, of the knowledge from onegeneration to the next.

Ballantyne et al. (2006) claim that environmental education aims to foster publicawareness and concern about environmental issues, problems and solutionsby providing people with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes,commitment and skills needed to investigate issues, solve problems and protect andimprove the environment. Interestingly, they argue that young people are the peoplethat the focus should rest on because they can act as a catalyst of further environmentalcommunication and learning beyond their place of study. They can educate their eldersthrough intergenerational influence as they do with many other things such as the useof computers, and mobile phones.

The aims and importance of environmental education and researchMany writers have determined that the main aim of environmental education is tochange attitudes that will in turn change behaviour. As long ago as Ramsey andRickson (1976) identified that it has long been known that the basis for manyenvironmental problems and issues is irresponsible behaviour, and without a doubt oneof the most important influences on behaviour is attitude. Campbell Bradley et al. (1999)stress the need for trying to change young people’s environmental attitudes becauseyoung people ultimately will be affected by, and will need to provide, solutions toenvironmental problems arising from present day actions. As future policymakers, theyouth of today will be responsible for “fixing” the environment and they will be the oneswho must be persuaded to adopt and pay the costs of future environmental policies.

Therefore, it appears that effective environmental education, which changes theattitudes of young people, is crucial. The research of Campbell Bradley et al. (1999)showed that environmental knowledge improved significantly after an intensiveten-day environmental science course, but although environmental attitude didimprove the increase was not significant. This illustrates that factors other than formaleducation such as background, parents’ jobs, etc. can influence attitude. However, thefindings do demonstrate a need for formal education programmes and educationalinterventions that are also supported by Zelezny (1999).

Zelezny (1999) defines educational interventions as planned strategies that provideinformation and/or training to modify or achieve a predicted pro-environmentaloutcome. The results of her research found that all classroom intervention studiesreported improved pro-environmental behaviour, and that of those interventions innon-traditional settings, less than 50 per cent reported any improvement. Non-traditionalsettings included the use of posters to disseminate information or informal workshops.

Graham (2000) believed that it is crucial that building professionals not onlyparticipate in the creation of projects that have low environmental impact, but equallyit is important that they learn to conceive, nurture, promote and facilitate the kind ofparadigm changes seen as necessary to create a sustainable society. This beliefstresses the importance of education, not just to increase knowledge but also to promote

SS28,4

268

attitudinal changes. However, there are limitations as to what education can achieveon its own, for as Jucker (2002) believes, if we do not do everything we can to transformour political, economic and social systems into more sustainable structures, we mightas well forget the educational part.

Environmental education and curriculum design good practiceDeveloping environmental knowledge, skills and understanding is a major task whichmust involve many parties besides the education sector. However, the HE sector has anindispensable role to play by providing:

. specialist courses leading to specifically environmental qualifications;

. updating courses for those already in the workforce; and

. environmental education for all students, whatever their specialist subjects ofstudy (DFE, 1993).

It has been identified that some of the barriers preventing the construction industryaccepting the need for more sustainable construction on a global level include humanresources lack of understanding of environmental issues, lack of environmentaleducation of the professionals in the industry and research findings generated byacademia being too theoretical and not communicated to the industry in a way that willenable the findings to be accepted (Edwards, 1999). Edwards (2005) identified that wheresustainable construction and design are taught, there appears to be little correspondencebetween knowledge acquisition via lectures and knowledge application via projects.

In terms of curriculum design good practice, the following were identified:. integrating environmental issues into the curriculum (Dorweiler and Yakhou,

1998; Perdan et al., 2000);. reviewing approaches to teaching and learning (CIB, 1999; Williams, 2004;

Moon, 1999);. improving and increasing links between academia and industry (DfBERR, 2007;

Yuan, 2001; Salter, 1999);. adopting a learning-outcome approach to curriculum design (Huack,

1998a, b; Auchey et al., 2000; Wolfe, 2001; Chartered Institute of Building(CIOB, 2007));

. adopting an interdisciplinary approach ( Jucker, 2002; Wolfe, 2001;Norberg-Hodge, 2000; Graham, 2000; Fettig et al., 2002);

. adoption of both integration (incorporating sustainability into core subjects) andfragmentation (teaching sustainability as a bespoke topic) ( Jucker, 2002); and

. building on experienced-based learning (Auchey et al., 2000; Jucker, 2002).

Barriers that prevent sustainability being included in the curriculumThe importance of environmental education in the construction curriculum is widelyaccepted, but there are barriers that can hinder its implementation. These barriers canbe broken down into five main categories:

(1) the organisation and funding of UK universities (Dulaimi, 1995; Wilkinson,1997; Ali Khan, 1996; Alabaster and Blair, 1996);

Promotingsustainability

literacy

269

(2) academic indifference and approach to teaching and assessment (Fien andRawling, 1996; Alabaster and Blair, 1996; Wemmenhove and de Groot, 2001;Simons, 1996; Perdan et al., 2000);

(3) the curriculum;

(4) student backgrounds (Tikka et al., 2000; Gigliotti, 1992); and

(5) lack of communication between industry and academia (Leal Filho, 1999;Gann, 2001).

Identifying the current state of construction education and highlighting the need forenvironmental education serve as drivers for this research. Avoiding environmentaldamage is a global issue, and the effects of one country’s environmental attitudes canaffect the whole world. Therefore, if theories of good practice of curriculum design areto be developed, some international input is desirable. In order to test these,a hypothesis focusing on the comparison of international data was formulated:

In Australia, there will be a much greater focus on environmental issues and sustainability inconstruction management programmes because damage to the environment is much moreevident there than in the UK.

MethodologyIn order to identify if there was any good practice being undertaken in countries whereenvironmental problems are more visible than the UK with regard to curriculumgreening, an international perspective was introduced. The initial consideration forthe choice of country for comparison and input to the research was language. To removethe problem of language, only English-speaking countries were considered. The countrywhere there are cultural, linguistic, technical and educational similarities is Australia.

Primary data was collected from construction management programme leaders in theUK (24 in total) via structured telephone interviews and from construction managementstudents via a questionnaire. The same interview questions were asked of programmeleaders in Australian universities. Sampling was undertaken using cluster analysisbased on a sampling grid in order to generate a suitable sample. Face to face interviewswere then undertaken with construction management programme leaders at institutionsincluded in the sample. In addition, an exploratory interview was arranged with anex-professor of architecture from the University of Canberra, now based in the UK.The interview and the review of various Australian industry reports indicated that thereare many similarities between the UK and Australian construction industries.

ProcedureIn order to make suitable comparisons between the UK and Australia, primary dataneeded to be collected from institutions with the same qualifications as those used in theUK. The institutions targeted in the UK were those that run construction managementundergraduate degrees that are accredited by the CIOB. The Australian Institute ofBuilding is affiliated to the CIOB and as such has a similar role to the UK-basedorganisation in setting and maintaining professional standards. The AustralianInstitute of Building was contacted and they kindly provided a list of institutions thatrun courses accredited by them. There were 11 in total, and these were all contactedvia e-mail. About eight institutions responded positively to being involved in the project.

SS28,4

270

The data analysis method used involved the use of NVivo Software. The principlesof NVivo are based on coding and to use it in its purest form, the software would beused to open code and then axial code, which is a totally qualitative approach.However, it can also be used to open code only by developing nodes (coding categories)and then using the two levels of explanation defined by Strauss and Corbin (1998)to analyse the results:

(1) the actual words used by respondents; and

(2) our conceptualisation of these derived from the coding.

This approach requires elements of qualitative and quantitative analysis that supportsthe idea that this research project employs a mixed model methodology approach to thecollection and analysis of data.

The questions asked were grouped under the following main headings. Somequestions were asked to determine variables and others were asked to gain perspectiveson the various facets of curriculum design and development:

. background (person);

. background (institution);

. approaches to curriculum design;

. student knowledge requirements;

. student attitudes;

. curriculum flexibility;

. stakeholders;

. industry involvement in curriculum design; and

. future approaches to curriculum design and development.

The transcripts of the interviews undertaken were converted into rich text format filesand imported into the NVivo Software. The software was then used to isolate theresponses question by question. This enabled node coding reports to be developed foreach question and made open coding much simpler. Categories were identified from theresponses and codes developed.

ResultsApproaches to curriculum designIn the UK, all construction management programmes have an environmental sciencemodule, or similar, at level 1. This is because the CIOB educational framework asksspecifically for this. However, from the responses of the programme leaders, to arguethat this covers environmental issues in the context of construction work is inaccurate,but it is relevant for giving background information for sustainable design.

There were differences between the approaches adopted in both countries withuniversities in both countries stating they had fragmented approaches and somestating they had integrated approaches. All the interviewees stated that environmentalissues were integrated in many modules, particularly construction technology andconstruction management. In construction technology, the emphasis is mainly onchoice of materials that are specified for different building types and in constructionmanagement it is mainly on waste management. Therefore, although the respondents

Promotingsustainability

literacy

271

stated that it was integrated, the focus is very narrow. Several of the programmeshave modules, or parts of modules, that are devoted entirely to environmental issues.

The main finding was that although the programme leaders believedthat sustainability was integrated, they could not prove it and evidence was mainlyanecdotal. They insinuated that if evidence of this was required via documentation,then this would not be possible. They also stated that integration was not enough atthis time and one of the respondents believed that even though sustainability shouldbe integrated like health and safety as the educational framework promotes, in realitythe only way to raise the profile was to develop bespoke modules as they had done forhealth and safety.

The question “Are you happy with the extent to which environmental issues areincorporated in your programme?” prompted some very interesting responsessummarised below:

I am, yes, we are well ahead of the industry, it is industry I am not happy with, not the course.

We could always do more, but considering the ever increasing base of the curriculum then abalance needs to be struck.

I would say no, because there is no way in which it is controlled or organised.

These statements are interesting for a number of reasons. One is demonstrating a verystrong belief that the industry is not proactive in this area and that graduates of today’sprogrammes will be far more knowledgeable in sustainability issues than thosecurrently employed in the industry. One statement purports to the fact thatthe educational framework is ever increasing and it will be impossible to “fit more in”.The final statement can be interpreted as meaning that if integration is the only routeused it is not monitored effectively and therefore may not happen. An element offragmentation is also required that can be controlled.

Although the Australian programme leaders were generally happier with theamount of environmental content, the same issues were raised in some of the interviews:

[. . .] the AIB is happy with the element of our coverage, but in the long-term I think certainlywe can do more (restriction by professional body requirements).

I don’t think as a group of staff we understand the full extent of the environmental topics thatwe could be dealing with (lack of staff knowledge).

The main differences between the data gathered in the UK and Australia are that in theUK interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning are more prevalent.Interdisciplinary approaches to teaching have been adopted in the UK mainly to ensurethe viability of programmes by more efficient delivery through multi-group teaching.

Student knowledge requirementsThe UK programme leaders all believe that waste management on site and duringproduction of components to be crucial if the construction industry is to improve itsperformance and therefore students need detailed knowledge of how this can beachieved. One respondent stated that they had included studies of waste managementpractices in Australia and cited these as good practice. A good summarisation of whatthe programme leaders believe students need to know is:

SS28,4

272

It’s just a fundamental understanding of the environmental impact of a building in thebuilding process and throughout the life of the building.

It was also stated that students need to know more about the global impacts ofconstruction on the environment. Discussing sustainability at a module levelsometimes means that concepts are delivered out of the broader context. In Australia,there appears to be more integration of environmental issues. Australians are betterenvironmentally educated at school level which is a consequence of the AustralianGovernment intervention in the state education system which is due to the effects thatAustralia is witnessing due to climate change and reduction in the ozone layer. TheAustralian students would appear to enter university more knowledgeable on globalenvironmental issues and have positive attitudes to the potential for change in theconstruction and property industries. The UK students appear to be less knowledgeableon entry to university, and therefore need to be taught about global issues and thenfocus on sustainability in the context of their studies. As their knowledge increasestheir attitudes change.

The Australian interviewees concurred with the UK respondents in stating thatwaste management is the major issue that needs to be addressed in the curriculum andthey also highlighted the need for students to know how to reduce dust and noise duringconstruction work. There was also more emphasis on the building design and life cycleof buildings in their responses and the need to ensure that students know solutions tobuilding problems that will reduce energy loss and pollution over the life of buildings.

However, one respondent stated that issues of sustainable construction should be inthe postgraduate as opposed to undergraduate arena. He thought that “you can dabble”in the undergraduate course and that there is not enough space in the curriculum toaddress these issues in enough depth. He then stated that not many students go on todo postgraduate degrees, and if it is acknowledged that to facilitate change then themajority of professionals in the industry would need to have at least some knowledgeof sustainability, then this would be a problem.

In both countries, the idea of including social issues relating to sustainability weredeemed to be less important, except that students should appreciate the contribution ofconstruction work and buildings on a wider scale. This does not just mean from thenegative energy use, pollution causing, resource depletion perspectives, but also from apositive side. There was an undercurrent in the responses that related to time availablein the curriculum to include social issues, and this links back to one of the barriers toimproving environmental literacy being the restricted nature of modular degreeprogrammes which have to comply with a tightly defined educational framework.

When asked if the programme leaders thought the programmes should focus ondesign, the answer was no. After the initial answers though, it was agreed by themajority that there needs to be a reasonable element of the programme that focuses ondesign. The reasons for this were that a substantial number of graduates are now goingto work for companies that undertake a lot of design and build work so they will havean impact on design choice and specification. However, the teaching of sustainabledesign should not detract away from traditional building processes, because thenstudents would have insufficient knowledge of prevalent construction practices.

The question relating to whether or not the focus of a programme should be onsustainable construction had already been largely answered. The respondents in boththe UK and Australia believe that the focus should be on core traditional construction

Promotingsustainability

literacy

273

management subjects but that there should certainly be a strong bias towardssustainable construction and an element of sustainable design. If there is room for socialissues these should be included but detailing of construction specific-information ismore important than generic information because students are now starting theiruniversity studies with this knowledge.

When the respondents were asked “Do you think the knowledge students get willenable real changes to be made to industry practices with regard to protecting theenvironment?” The statements were as follows:

Yes, but it could take a long time and it also relies on people that are leaving the universitiessticking to the principles, and the industry not actually polluting them with bad practice.

When they get into work I think they just caught up in the culture and ethics and theenvironmental stance of the company.

The respondents seem to think that the individuals’ attitudes and behaviour will beinfluenced by the organisation and that what universities teach them will be “lost”.This is a very negative stance and is not supported by the data collected in the initialpilot study that suggested that students who had exposure to the industry, part timeand sandwich students, had no difference in attitudes to full time students. Nor is itsupported by the research undertaken by Ballantyne et al. (2006) who believe that theyounger generation are the people who will educate older generations by theirconviction that there is a problem that genuinely needs solving.

More positively and in support of this view, the programme leaders stated:

I think that the motivation comes from within them as to how much change they want. I thinkwe would hope that they go with a sort of ethical and social conscience, to go out there and todo things. I think we find they have got it to a large extent when they arrive and we certainlywould help them to develop that.

I think it is possible but as with all of these things the process of change is extremely slow inthat it’s a generational thing, things should improve generation by generation.

Student attitudesProgramme leaders in both countries were asked if they believed attitudes change asstudents progress through the course. This produced very different responses, in theUK all stated yes, as environmental knowledge increases so do positive attitudes.In Australia, they all stated no, students arrive with mainly positive attitudes and theyjust increase their specific knowledge of sustainable construction and design. No reasonfor this was given except that it could be intimated that Australian students studymore generic environmental subjects in school and evidence of environmental damageis very prevalent in Australia, so they are committed to making changes before theyenter university. Interestingly, all these responses were anecdotal and no programmeleaders had any evidence to substantiate their claims. In most universities, studentsare choosing environmental themes for their dissertations but not in large numbers.

It was verified that programme leaders believe that industry needs to change andbecome more sustainably aware and active. There is agreement that the graduates ofconstruction management programmes are the people who can influence industry byintergenerational attitudinal changes. It has been acknowledged that the constructionindustry is slow to develop innovative practices and respond quickly to change,but that graduates of sustainably focused degree programmes can be the catalysts

SS28,4

274

for change. It was generally agreed by programme leaders that student attitudeschange over time with increased knowledge of sustainable design and construction.

Curriculum flexibilityThere were two overwhelming themes that emerged in the responses regardingany barriers that prevent further inclusion of environmental issues in the curriculum.They were:

(1) lack of space in the curriculum, mainly caused by modularisation; and

(2) lack of staff expertise and enthusiasm to develop expertise.

Comments to support these statements included:

I think modularisation means everything is in small compartments and everyone is trying tocram in their subjects into these small boxes so it is difficult to fit things in.

[. . .] the modular system is the biggest preventer because it doesn’t allow you to be asintegrated as you would like in the curriculum.

The responses in the UK and Australia were virtually identical with space in thecurriculum and staff motivation and expertise identified as the two main barriersfor the inclusion of more environmental issues in the curriculum. When asked toverify whether they were happy with the amount of environmental content in theirprogrammes, the consensus in both countries was yes, but it would probably need toincrease over time. This increase could be facilitated with more integration andthemeing of programmes.

Generally, it can be deduced that in the UK an input-driven approach to curriculumdesign is the most common method, whereas in Australia an expected learning outcomesmodel is what is aimed for, but this can develop into input-driven mode if staff interestsare allowed to dominate the design of the learning outcomes.

In the UK and Australia, the most emphasis on sustainability comes in the technologyand building services subjects. There is also a significant amount incorporated inthe management modules, a couple of universities stated that they had bespokeenvironmentally focussed modules and there seemed to be a consensus thatenvironmental issues were taking more precedence in project modules. Integrated andinterdisciplinary projects were viewed by the majority as the best tools for the promotionof environmental literacy, but these need to be supported by the use of a broaderapproach of lectures, tutorials, laboratory work that can lead to the development ofknowledge that can be applied in projects.

Stakeholders in curriculum designThe most powerful stakeholders in curriculum design and therefore curriculum changeare generally agreed to be the academic teaching staff of a department, supported byprofessional body guidance that is influenced by industry. Therefore, to give guidanceon curriculum design to programme leaders should be useful. The responsesappertaining to curriculum development for construction management programmes inthe UK and Australia can be interpreted and summarised in the following statement:

A learning outcomes approach to curriculum development is seen as good practice, but inreality (less so in Australia) curriculum development has aspects of both learning outcomes

Promotingsustainability

literacy

275

(professional body influences) and input driven (staff influence) approaches. In both countriesthe top five main stakeholders in curriculum design are the same but in a slightly differentorder [. . .] These stakeholders are the university, the programme team, industry, theprofessional body and students.

Industry involvement in curriculum designIn the UK, again there was some consternation when discussing industry influence.The programme leaders knew that the right answer was to say yes, but in reality this didnot happen for a number of reasons. Lack of industry willingness to get involved was onereason why they were not consulted more, but the main reason was that the programmeleaders felt that industry see construction management degree programmes as trainingprogrammes and as such want more skills included rather than increased andwide-ranging knowledge. As one stated:

A construction management degree is simply a vocational degree, it has a theme but it is stilla degree programme. It is not a training programme.

There was mainly strong disagreement that sustainability is a fad and it will go outof fashion and we will move on to another topic of interest in a few years. One UKinterviewee summed up the general feeling:

There is no going back from the global requirements to be able to live sustainably,

and one of the Australian interviewees went further in stating that:

It’s been ignored for long enough and it’s now got to the point where we can’t afford to ignoreit anymore.

The responses to the statement regarding how important industry views the issues ofsustainability, and whether academia needs to take it seriously were answered in twoparts. General consensus in both countries was that industry is not taking it seriously,but that academia needs to educate the professionals of the future.

When asked whether industry does not green itself more readily because it will costthem money, the responses suggested that attitudes and perceptions in both countrieswere basically the same: that the industry does believe to build “green” will cost moreand therefore they are not willing to implement sustainable systems. It was furthersuggested that clients need to demand that contractors prove that they are designingand constructing buildings with sustainability in mind and if all contractors tender onthe same basis it will not cost them money. There was total agreement in both countriesthat clients will be asking more questions about the environmental performance ofcontractors, the only concern being that smaller clients may not be aware enough ofthe potential impacts on the environment from construction works and buildings toknow what questions to ask. Therefore, government policy would be required. Therewas similar full agreement that sustainable and environmental issues are of vitalimportance and that students need to know about these issues.

However, it has been identified that this may not be enough to make the substantialchanges to industry practices that are needed to reduce environmental damagecaused by construction work and buildings. There is strong support for the idea thatin order to make major changes then clients need to be advised as to how they can reduceenvironmental damage when procuring building works, and therefore they have tobecome knowledgeable clients. There are two main methods of achieving this, one is that

SS28,4

276

graduates become client advisors and stress the importance of building green instead ofbuilding cheap, the other way would be for the government to introduce legislation tomake clients act more environmentally responsibly.

The Australian programme leaders claimed that there was more industrial inputinto their curricula designs than in the UK. However, this can be countered by the factthat industry in the UK has a lot of input into the CIOB educational framework.Therefore, in the UK, for programmes mapped against the framework which all theprogrammes are, there is actually a good deal of industry input.

Future approaches to curriculum design and developmentWhen the UK programme leaders were asked what predicted future curriculumchanges they thought would occur, there was an underlying theme to a number ofresponses. There was a view that the curriculum now is not a curriculum in terms ofknowledge, but a series of syllabuses that link together and are supplemented by skilland competency development. The implication of this approach is that universitiesneed to make sure they make people lifelong learners and that they have given themtheir skills and competences along with a core of the curricula so that they can take offand go further. The other change that was seen as necessary in the UK was to revertback to the more traditional construction management programme that includes verygeneric construction subjects but without specialism. The programme leadersappeared to feel that specialism should be left to organisations to train employees forthe job that they want as opposed to universities who should concentrate on students’learning and knowledge expansion rather than training to do a specific job.

The combined responses were very similar, which was surprising given the authors’research hypothesis that was developed for the international comparison:

In Australia there will be a much greater focus on environmental issues and sustainability inconstruction management programmes because damage to the environment is much moreevident there than in the UK.

The primary data collection and subsequent analysis did not support this hypothesisand there are no elements of good practice that are substantially different in curriculumdesign in Australia than those employed in the UK.

Development of a model for curriculum design to promote sustainability literacyUsing Huack’s (1998a) list of essential elements of construction curricula, the schemasuggested by Moon (1999) to guide reflective activity in professional developmenttowards improvement of professional practice, the recommendations for sustainableconstruction as set out in the draft strategy for sustainable construction (DfBERR,2007) and the findings of the primary research conducted, a model was devised forcurriculum design that could develop sustainability literacy in students. The model isentitled “the future paradigm for sustainable construction curriculum design”(Figure 1) and shows graphically the principles required for curriculum design and atwhat phase of curriculum development each principle needs to be considered.

The overall aim of this research was to produce a set of well-developed conceptsthat could be used to explain or predict phenomena related to curriculum modelling. Theseconcepts were derived from data that has been systematically gathered and subsequentlyanalysed and a model developed that may be used to supplement existing professionalbody guidance for curriculum design that aims to promote literacy in sustainability.

Promotingsustainability

literacy

277

The next step would be to test the model and verify previous findings. A possible wayof doing so could be by assessing student learning and attitude change after modelimplementation.

References

Alabaster, T. and Blair, D. (1996), “Greening the university”, in Huckle, J. and Sterling, S. (Eds),Education for Sustainability, Earthscan Reader, London, pp. 86 and 102.

Ali Khan, S. (1996), Environmental Responsibility: A Review of the 1993 Toyne Report,Welsh Office, HMSO, London.

Auchey, F.L., Mills, T.H., Beliveau, Y.J. and Auchey, G.J. (2000), “Using the learning outcomestemplate as an effective tool for evaluation of the undergraduate building constructionprogram”, Journal of Construction Education, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 244-59.

Ballantyne, R., Connell, S. and Fien, J. (2006), “Students as catalysts of environmental change:a framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmentaleducation”, Environmental Education Research, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4, pp. 413-27.

Brundtland, G.H. (1991), “Foreword”, in Bendict, F. (Ed.),EnvironmentalEducation forOurCommonFuture: A Handbook for Teachers in Europe, Norwegian University Press, Oslo.

Campbell Bradley, J., Waliczek, T.M. and Zajicek, J. (1999), “Relationship between environmentalknowledge and environmental attitude of high school students”, Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 17-21.

CIB (1999), CIB Report Publication 237, CIB, Rotterdam, July.

CIOB (2007), The CIOB Education Framework 2007, CIOB Publications, Englemere.

DfBERR (2007), Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction: A Consultation Paper, Departmentfor Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, London.

Figure 1.The future paradigm forsustainable constructioncurriculum design

Definition of expected learning outcomes for the programme

Env

iron

men

tal t

hem

e ru

nnin

g th

roug

hea

ch le

vel

Confirmation that environmental issues are integratedthroughout the programme

Inco

rpor

atio

n of

rea

l lif

e ca

se s

tudi

es

Dev

elop

men

t mec

hani

sms

to a

llow

for

refl

ectio

n on

pre

conc

eive

d be

liefs

and

chan

ging

atti

tude

s to

the

envi

ronm

ent

Development of a team approach to curriculum design

Bui

lt in

mec

hani

sms

to a

llow

inte

rdis

cipl

inar

y le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

Developing sustainability literacy:The future paradigm for construction curriculum design

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Bui

lt in

mec

hani

sms

to im

prov

ere

sear

ch s

kills

Hol

istic

pro

ject

bas

ed a

ppro

ach

SS28,4

278

DFE (1993), “Environmental responsibility: an agenda for further and higher education”,Report of a Committee on Environmental Education in Further and Higher Education,appointed by the Department for Education and the Welsh Office, HMSO, London,(Note: The Chairman of the Committee was Professor Peter Toyne, the report is commonlyreferred to as the “Toyne Report”).

Dorweiler, V. and Yakhou, M. (1998), “Environmental education for the nonenvironmentalengineering students: an imperative for the next generation of engineers”, Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 52-8.

Dulaimi, M.F. (1995), “The education factor and the UK construction industry”, CIB W89Construction and Building Education and Research Beyond 2000, Conference Proceedings,Orlando, FL, USA, 5-7 April, pp. 447-55.

Edwards, B. (1999), Sustainable Architecture: European Directives and Building Design, 2nd ed.,Architectural Press, Oxford, pp. xiv-xvi and 229.

Edwards, B. (2005), Rough Guide to Sustainability, 2nd ed., RIBA Enterprises, London, p. 20.

Fettig, J., Henne, K.-H. and Maßmeyer, K. (2002), “A technical environment protection curriculumin Germany: intentions, acceptance and future improvements”, International Journal ofSustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-74.

Fien, J. (1997), “Stand up, stand up and be counted: undermining the myths of environmentaleducation”, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 13, pp. 21-36.

Fien, J. and Rawling, R. (1996), “Reflective practice: a case study of professional development forenvironmental education”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 11-20.

Gann, D. (2001), “Putting academic ideas into practice: technological progress and the absorbtivecapacity of construction organizations”, Construction Economics andManagement, Vol. 19,pp. 321-30.

Gigliotti, L.M. (1992), “Environmental attitudes: 20 years of change?”, Journal of EnvironmentalEducation, Vol. 24, pp. 15-26.

Graham, P. (2000), “Building education for the next industrial revolution: teaching and learningenvironmental literacy for the building professions”, Construction Management andEconomics, Vol. 18, pp. 917-25.

HM Government (2005), “Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy”,available at: www:sustainable-development.gov.uk/index.asp (accessed March 2006).

Huack, A.J. (1998a), “Construction management curriculum reform and integration with a broaderdiscipline: a case study”, Journal of Construction Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 118-30.

Huack, A.J. (1998b), “Towards a taxonomy of learning outcomes for construction managementeducation”, Journal of Construction Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 150-63.

Huckle, S. (1993), “Environmental education and sustainability: a view from critical theory”,in Fien, J. (Ed.), Environmental Education: A Pathway to Sustainability, Deakin University,Geelong, p. 61.

Jucker, R. (2002), “Sustainability? Never heard of it!”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 8-18.

Leal Filho, W. (1999), “Getting people involved”, in Buckingham-Hatfield, S. and Percy, S. (Eds),Constructing Local Environmental Agendas, Routledge, London.

McKeown-Ice, R. and Dendinger, R. (2000), “Socio-political foundations of environmentaleducation”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 37-45.

Moon, J. (1999), Reflection in Learning and Professional Development: Theory and Practice,Kogan Page, London, p. 180.

Promotingsustainability

literacy

279

Murray, P. and Cotgrave, A. (2007), “Sustainability literacy: the future paradigm for constructioneducation?”, Structural Survey, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 7-23.

Norberg-Hodge, H. (2000), Ancient Future: Learning from Ladakh, Rider Books, London.

Perdan, S., Azapagic, A. and Clift, R. (2000), “Teaching sustainable development to engineeringstudents”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 3,pp. 267-79.

Ramsey, C.E. and Rickson, R.E. (1976), “Environmental knowledge and attitudes”, The Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 10-18.

Salter, W.J. (1999), “Curriculum greening in further education – a pilot study”, paper presented atthe Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, West Park ConferenceCentre, University of Dundee, Dundee, 30 September-2 October.

Simons, H. (1996), “The paradox of case study”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 225-40.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures forDeveloping Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Tikka, P.M., Kuitunen, M.T. and Tynys, S.M. (2000), “Effects of educational background onstudents’ atitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment”, Journal ofEnvironmental Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 12-19.

Wemmenhove, R. and de Groot, W. (2001), “Principles for university greening – an empirical casestudy from Tanzania”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2No. 3, pp. 267-83.

Wilkinson, S. (1997), “Towards sustainability in the European Union? Steps within the EuropeanCommission towards integrating the environment into other European Unionpolicy sectors”, in O’Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. (Eds), Sustainable Development inWestern Europe: Coming to Terms with Agenda 21, Frank Cass, London, pp. 153-73.

Williams, A. (2004), “Industry engagement in UK built environment higher educationprogrammes”, in Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed.), 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, Heriot WattUniversity, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Edinburgh,1-3 September, Vol. 1, pp. 541-9.

Wolfe, V.L. (2001), “A survey of the environmental education of students in non-environmentalmajors at four-year institutions in the USA”, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 301-15.

Yuan, L.L. (2001), “Quality of life case studies for university teaching in sustainable development”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 127-38.

Zelezny, L. (1999), “Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviours:a meta-analysis”, Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 5-14.

Corresponding authorAlison J. Cotgrave can be contacted at: a.j.cotgrave@ljmu.ac.uk

SS28,4

280

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints