Construction Management Reflective Report Sample: Academic Skills Development

Introduction

This report reflects on the first eight weeks of my Professional Skills for Construction Management module. I use Gibbs’ (1988) reflective cycle because it pushes me past “what happened” and towards “what I will do differently”. The module covered academic writing, Harvard referencing, critical reading and presenting. I also worked in a group of four on a ten-minute presentation about retrofitting a 1960s residential block. Reflection matters in this field for a practical reason. Schön (1983) argued that professionals improve by thinking about their actions, both during and after the event. Construction managers do this all the time, in site meetings, snagging reviews and post-project debriefs. A student who cannot reflect on a weak draft will struggle to reflect on a delayed programme. The report follows the six stages of the cycle, then looks at the presentation and finishes with a development plan.

Description

In week one, I could write fluently but not academically. My first practice task was a 500-word summary of an article on construction productivity. Half of it described the article. The rest was my opinion, with no sources. The tutor’s feedback came down to one question: where is your evidence? Over the following weeks I changed three habits. I built each paragraph around a claim, evidence and my own comment. I set up Harvard referencing from the start instead of leaving it to the end. And I began reading sources critically, asking who wrote them, why, and what they left out. By week six I had submitted a 1,000-word draft with eleven sources, and the feedback was about my argument rather than my basics.

Feelings

I started the module anxious and a little resentful. I chose construction management to work on buildings, not to write essays, and I assumed the writing side was a box-ticking exercise. That attitude cost me the first two weeks. The first feedback stung. I had spent hours on the task and still landed in the low 40s. Embarrassment came first, then irritation, then curiosity. When I rewrote the same summary using the tutor’s comments, the improvement was obvious and my mood shifted. Writing stopped feeling like a hurdle and started feeling like something I could get better at. Presenting was different. My heart was racing before I said a word, and I felt more exposed than any piece of writing had ever made me feel.

Evaluation

What went well

• The claim, evidence and comment structure improved my writing within two weeks.
• Recording full source details as I read meant no panic the night before a deadline.
• Peer review worked. Two of us caught unsupported claims in each other’s drafts.

What did not go well

• I left the presentation slides until the last two days, and they were crammed with text.
• Early on I over-quoted, stringing together other people’s words instead of making my own point.
• Time management slipped in week four, when two deadlines landed together.

Analysis

The root cause of my early marks was a misunderstanding of what academic writing is for. I treated it as a way to show what I knew. It is actually a way to argue a case with evidence, which is the same logic a construction manager uses to justify a variation or a programme change. Once I saw that link, I wrote with more purpose. Reading changed too. Egan (1998) argued that UK construction needed measurable improvement in quality and efficiency. Latham (1994) criticised adversarial relationships between clients and contractors and pushed for better teamwork. Read together, they made one point I had missed: better results usually come from better planning and collaboration, not from one clever fix. My group’s presentation showed it in miniature. When we agreed roles early, the work flowed. When we did not, two of us built the same slide. My time-management problem was a planning failure, not a lack of effort. I had no schedule that worked backwards from deadlines. Cottrell (2019) advises planning study time in advance, and I had read that in week two and ignored it. Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) stress that reflection only works if feelings are examined alongside events. My irritation at the first mark was useful data. It showed I had been defending my effort when I should have been defending my argument.

Conclusion

Three conclusions come out of this. First, my early weakness was not writing ability but missing evidence and structure. Second, the habits that worked, early referencing, paragraph structure and peer review, are cheap and repeatable. Third, my biggest remaining risks are planning and presenting. With hindsight, I should have asked for help with the slides in week five, not week seven.

References

• Boud, D., Keogh, R. and Walker, D. (1985) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page.
• Cottrell, S. (2019) The Study Skills Handbook. 5th edn. London: Red Globe Press.
• Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
• Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods. Oxford: Further Education Unit.
• Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team. London: HMSO.
• Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.