Inquiry-Based Learning as a Pedagogical Innovation for Virtual Construction Education

The rapid digital transformation of the construction industry is reshaping the knowledge, skills and competencies required of construction graduates. As higher education increasingly adopts virtual and blended learning environments, there is growing recognition that traditional lecturer-centred teaching approaches are insufficient for developing the critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration and professional judgement required for contemporary construction practice. This paper examines the role of Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) as a pedagogical innovation for virtual construction education within the South African higher education context. A qualitative research approach was adopted using a desktop-based systematic literature review to critically synthesise the existing literature on constructivism, IBL, virtual learning and construction education. The review identified five interrelated themes, namely pedagogical transformation, the limitations of traditional pedagogies, IBL as a constructivist pedagogy, virtual learning and graduate preparedness. The findings indicate that IBL provides an effective pedagogical framework for promoting active learning, collaboration, reflection and knowledge construction within virtual learning environments, while strengthening the higher-order competencies required for professional construction practice. The paper further proposes a conceptual framework that integrates constructivist learning theory, IBL and virtual construction education to support curriculum transformation within South African higher education. The framework offers both a theoretical foundation and practical guidance for educators seeking to design more engaging, student-centred and professionally relevant virtual learning environments.

Inquiry-Based Learning; Virtual Construction Education; Constructivism; Construction Education; Higher Education; South Africa

1. Ampofo-Anti, N. (2007). Highlighting the gap between critical outcomes requirements and built environment education in South Africa. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-03-0025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ayarkwa, J., Adinyira, E., & Osei-Asibey, D. (2011). Industrial training of construction students: Perceptions of training organizations in Ghana. Education + Training, 53(6), 531–545. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Biggs, J., Tang, C., & Kennedy, G. (2022). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw Hill Education/Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bilbo, D., Fetters, T., Burt, R., & Avant, J. (2000). A study of the supply and demand for construction education graduates. Journal of construction education, 5(1), 78–89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marin, V. I., & Handel, M. (2021). Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i–vi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Chileshe, N., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Industry and academia perceptions of construction management education: The case of South Africa. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 2(2), 85–114. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Drewery, D., Pretti, T. J., & Church, D. (2020). Contributions of work-integrated learning programs to organizational talent pipelines: Insights from talent managers. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(3), 275–288. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Erbil, D. G. (2020). A review of flipped classroom and cooperative learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Erbil, D. G. (2020). A Review of Flipped Classroom and Cooperative Learning Methods within the Context of Vygotsky's Theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Harinarain, N., & Haupt, T. C. (2016). The use of digital technologies to enhance learning in construction education. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(4), 791–810. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Haupt, T. C. (2009). An investigation into the skills gap in the South African construction industry. Journal of Construction, 15(2), 45–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Haupt, T. C. (2012). Student-centred learning in construction education. Journal of construction education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In (pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kivunja, C. (2014). Do you want your students to be job-ready with 21st century skills? Change pedagogies: A pedagogical paradigm shift from Vygotskyian social constructivism to critical thinking, problem solving and Siemens’ digital connectivism. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(3), 81–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Levy, P. (2009). Inquiry-based learning: A conceptual framework. In. Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Moreau, M.-P., & Leathwood, C. (2006). Graduates’ employment and the discourse of employability: A critical analysis. Journal of education and work, 19(4), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080600867083 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. OECD. (2024). Organisation for Economic, Co- operation Development, Education at a Glance 2024. https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Oecd. (2026a). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026: Exploring effective uses of generative AI in education. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-digital-education-outlook-2026_062a7394-en.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. OECD. (2026b). Organisation for Economic, Co-operation Development, OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026. https://doi.org/10.1787/062a7394-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Organisation for Economic, C.-o., & Development. (2026). OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Oviawe, J. I. (2016). Constructivism: A paradigm for teaching and learning. British Journal of Education, 4(4), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Pan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: A critical review and future trends. Automation in Construction, 122, 103517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103517 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational research review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Siddiqui, F. H., Thaheem, M. J., & Abdekhodaee, A. (2025). Pedagogies for Digital Skills in Construction Education: A Systematic Literature Review. In Creating Capacity and Capability: Embracing Advanced Technologies and Innovations for Sustainable Future in Building Education and Practice. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Skrentny, J. D., & Lewis, K. (2022). Beyond the technical: Cumulative advantage and the soft skills discourse in STEM employment. Socius, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Spronken-Smith, R., & Kingham, S. (2009). Strengthening teaching and research links: The case of a pollution exposure inquiry project. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 241–253. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Unesco. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. World Economic, F. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zulu, E. (2019). Curriculum development for an inquiry approach to construction education [Google Scholar] [Crossref]