Construction law on built environment higher education programmes: what should be taught? How should it be taught?

Tim McLernon

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review


    References to the increasingly litigious nature of UK society are prevalent in the journals and magazines directed at the industries and professions associated with the built environment disciplines. Employers of graduates of those disciplines expect those graduates to have the necessary underpinning knowledge to ensure that their practices avoid formal dispute resolution with its inherent cost and expense. The purposes of this paper are to report on an element of a longitudinal study of methods utilised for teaching Construction Law on higher education programmes in the built environment discipline and to highlight and discuss issues arising from the study with a view to educational enhancement. The content of the paper will draw on current prescriptions from the literature relating to perspectives on pedagogy and practice and will critically compare the rationales for curriculum content and teaching practices across different built environment programmes from two UK universities using data from academic tutors and complementary data from small samples of students. The findings of the study will confirm different but sound rationales for curriculum content and will illustrate a variety of teaching methods used for construction law education. The conclusions of the study generated for this paper are indicative and intended for further discussion at the conference to inform curriculum design.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationCOBRA 2011: Proceedings of the RICS Construction and Property Conference; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors 12th – 13th September 2011, Salford, England
    Place of PublicationSalford, England
    PublisherRoyal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
    ISBN (Print)978-1-907842-19-1
    Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 12 Sept 2011

    Bibliographical note

    Reference text: Accelerating Change (2002). A Report by the Strategic Forum for Construction, London, Rethinking Construction.

    Biglan, A, (1973). Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments, Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 3, pp 204-213.

    Boud, D. (2011). Enhancing Assessment and Feedback for Learning, Keynote Address, Faculty of Art, Design and the Built Environment Teaching and Learning Event, University of Ulster, June 2011.

    Brew, A., & Sachs, J. (Eds.) (2007). Transforming a University: the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Practice, Sydney, NSW, Sydney University Press.

    Hativa, N. & M. Marincovich (1995) (Eds.). Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Inc.
    Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences, in The Modern American College, ed. Arthur W. Chickering. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    McKeever, G. and McNamee, E. (2011). Understanding Law, State and Society: a practical pedagogic perspective, in Perspectives on Pedagogy and Practice, Pp93-104, University of Ulster.
    Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organisations, New York, The Free Press.

    Porter, S. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 521-558.

    Smart, J.C. & Elton, C.F. (1975). Goal Orientations of Academic Departments: a test of Biglan’s model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 580-588

    Smart, J.C. & Elton, C.F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan Model, Research in Higher Education, 17, No3, 213-229.

    Smart, J.C. & McLaughlin, G.W. (1978). Reward Structures of Academic Disciplines, Research in Higher Education, 8, 39-55.

    Stoeker, J.L. (1993). The Biglan Classification Revisited Research in Higher Education, 34, No4, 451-464.

    Tinto, V. (2000). Looking at the university through different lenses. About Campus. 4(6), 2-4.

    Twale, D. & Schaller, M. (2002). Entering the magic circle: Building bridges through a religious mission that guides professionalization, NASPA Journal, 4, 319-332.
    Twale, D.J. & Place, A.W. (2005). Reconceptualizing the School of Education: Bridging the Cultures, Educational Leadership and Administration. accessed 2 Jun, 2011.
    Umbach, P.D. & Wawrzynski, M.R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153-184.

    Williams, A., Sher, W., & Simmons, C. (2010) Construction Education in Australia: a review of Learning and Teaching Challenges and Opportunities, Sydney, Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

    Law Cases
    Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256; Court of Appeal, 1892 Dec. 6,7.
    Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords


    • Construction
    • law
    • curriculum
    • design
    • pedagogy


    Dive into the research topics of 'Construction law on built environment higher education programmes: what should be taught? How should it be taught?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this