Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-method study identifies key industry competency expectations in residential construction, highlighting curriculum modules to bridge the educational workforce gap.
Undergraduate residential construction programs face growing pressure to prepare graduates with competencies that reflect evolving workforce expectations. This study develops a preliminary evidence-informed framework for aligning undergraduate residential construction education with workforce expectations identified from selected U.S. residential construction markets and practitioner perspectives. Two complementary evidence streams were integrated. First, a systematic screening process informed by PRISMA reporting yielded 156 residential construction job postings collected from selected markets in the U.S. Southeast and Southwest (2024: 70; 2025: 86), which were analyzed using thematic coding to identify labor-market competency requirements. Second, a three-hour focus group involving 14 senior residential construction professionals representing 10 NAHB-affiliated firms provided practitioner perspectives on workforce competency expectations and educational preparation. Findings were integrated using Patton’s convergence model to examine convergence, complementarity, divergence, and source-specific signals across the two evidence streams. Five competency areas received cross-source support from labor-market evidence and practitioner perspectives. These findings were subsequently organized for educational interpretation within the following four domains: Technical; Professional; Management; and Safety, Quality, and Regulatory Compliance. Digital construction capability emerged as a cross-cutting practitioner-anticipated signal. The integrated findings informed six proposed educational modules and associated indicative learning outcomes. The study contributes a mixed-method approach for integrating labor-market and practitioner evidence and demonstrates how such evidence can inform preliminary curriculum design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: